Opinion
August 2, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's fourth cause of action is granted.
Since the plaintiff failed to set forth the particular words complained of in his complaint, his fourth cause of action for defamation should have been dismissed (see, CPLR 3016 [a]; Erlitz v Segal, Liling Erlitz, 142 A.D.2d 710; Belvision Inc. v MG Elecs., 134 A.D.2d 313; Lexow Jenkins v Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 122 A.D.2d 25). Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Joy, JJ., concur.