From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zherka v. Gribler

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 12, 2012
101 A.D.3d 864 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-12-12

Selim ZHERKA, appellant, v. Larry GRIBLER, et al., respondents.


Selim Zherka, New Rochelle, N.Y., appellant pro se.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered October 4, 2011, which granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the second amended complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that the defendants had made certain slanderous statements. “Slander as a rule is not actionable unless the plaintiff suffers special damage. Special damages contemplate the loss of something having economic or pecuniary value” ( Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 434–435, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). “The four established exceptions [to the requirement of special damages] (collectively ‘slander per se’) consist of statements (i) charging plaintiff with a serious crime; (ii) that tend to injure another in his or her trade, business or profession; (iii) that plaintiff has a loathsome disease; or (iv) imputing unchastity to a woman” ( id. at 435, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344). Here, the plaintiff failed to plead that he suffered special damages with the requisite particularity ( see Matherson v. Marchello, 100 A.D.2d 233, 236, 473 N.Y.S.2d 998). Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the second amended complaint failed to allege that the defendants charged him with committing a serious crime ( see Caffee v. Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352, 353, 478 N.Y.S.2d 683;Privitera v. Town of Phelps, 79 A.D.2d 1, 4, 435 N.Y.S.2d 402;Klein v. McGauley, 29 A.D.2d 418, 421, 288 N.Y.S.2d 751). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

*894In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contention.

ENG, P.J., LEVENTHAL, HALL and LOTT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Zherka v. Gribler

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 12, 2012
101 A.D.3d 864 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Zherka v. Gribler

Case Details

Full title:Selim ZHERKA, appellant, v. Larry GRIBLER, et al., respondents.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 12, 2012

Citations

101 A.D.3d 864 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8516
954 N.Y.S.2d 893

Citing Cases

Yong Ki Hong v. KBS Am., Inc.

If the statement is oral, it must also fall into one of four specified categories, which include statements…

Yong Ki Hong v. KBS America, Inc.

If the statement is oral, it must also fall into one of four specified categories, which include statements…