From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Kantor v. Pavelchak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1987
134 A.D.2d 352 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 9, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Alexander Warnecke.

The court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant Warnecke on the ground that the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations as this relief was not sought in the notice of motion or the accompanying affidavit (see, CPLR 2214 [c]; Pace v. Perk, 81 A.D.2d 444). Additionally, this court, upon searching the record on this motion, cannot reach the issue because of the omission in the record of any affidavit of service indicating when the action was commenced against Warnecke. However, the motion was nonetheless properly granted on the substantive grounds as set forth below.

A bona fide communication made upon any subject matter in which the party communicating has an interest or duty is protected by a qualified privilege when it is made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty (see, Stukuls v. State of New York, 42 N.Y.2d 272, 278-279). Here, the plaintiff concedes that the alleged defamatory statements were protected by this privilege as they were made by members of the church hierarchy to each other and to members of the church council in regard to rumors of alleged acts of impropriety on the part of the plaintiff, a council member. In order to defeat a qualified privilege it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that the statements were false and that the defendants acted with malice (Stukuls v. State of New York, supra; Friedman v. Ergin, 110 A.D.2d 620, affd 66 N.Y.2d 645; Handlin v. Burkhart, 101 A.D.2d 850, lv dismissed 64 N.Y.2d 607, 882, affd 66 N.Y.2d 678). The plaintiff failed to meet his burden by offering evidentiary proof which would raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of malice. Mere rumor, suspicions, surmise and accusations of malice, as are present here, are not sufficient to defeat the privilege (see, Stukuls v. State of New York, supra, at 278-279; Friedman v Ergin, supra). Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Kantor v. Pavelchak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1987
134 A.D.2d 352 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Matter of Kantor v. Pavelchak

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RUSSELL KANTOR, Appellant, v. DANIEL PAVELCHAK et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 9, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 352 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Martinos v. Greek Orthodox Archdioceses of Am.

Furthermore, "[a] bona fide communication made upon any subject matter in which the party communicating has…

Sieger v. Union, Orthodox Rabbis, U.S. Can

sions concerning questions of religious doctrine, such as whether plaintiff failed to respond to the summons…