Bisogno v. Borsa
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Officemax Inc. v. Cinotti (District Court, E.D. New York 2013)
- Feng Li v. Shih (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Benistar Admin Services, Inc. v. Wallach (District Court, E.D. New York 2021)
- Marri Furk v. Orange-Ulster Boces (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Doscher v. Meyer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Lipin v. Hunt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
“Statements made by parties, attorneys, and witnesses in the course of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, notwithstanding the motive with which they are made, so long as they are material and pertinent to the issue to be resolved in the proceeding” (Kilkenny v Law Off. of Cushner & Garvey, LLP, 76 AD3d 512, 513 [2010]; see Wiener v Weintraub, 22 NY2d 330 [1968]; Sinrod v Stone, 20 AD3d 560, 561 [2005]). Here, the allegedly defamatory statements were made in the course of either a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding and, as a matter of law, were material and pertinent to the issue to be resolved therein (see Kilkenny v Law Off. of Cushner & Garvey, LLP, 76 AD3d at 513). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that those statements were absolutely privileged (see Wiener v Weintraub, 22 NY2d at 331-332; Sinrod v Stone, 20 AD3d at 561). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging defamation.
The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.