Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
A statement made by counsel during a judicial proceeding, even if made with malice or bad faith, is protected by absolute privilege as long as the statement may, in some way, be considered pertinent to the litigation ( see Sexter Warmflash, P.C. v Margrabe, 38 AD3d 163, 171; see also Martirano v Frost, 25 NY2d 505, 507; Impallomeni v Meiselman, Farber, Packman Eberz, 272 AD2d 579). Here, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and resolving all inferences in favor of the plaintiff ( see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88), the complaint fails to state a cause of action against the defendants to recover damages for defamation, as the statements in issue were made between counsel in a judicial proceeding as a pertinent part of settlement negotiations and therefore are protected by an absolute privilege ( see Papa v Regan, 256 AD2d 452; Vodopia v Ziff-Davis Publ. Co., 243 AD2d 368; Sexter Warmflash, P.C. v Margrabe, 38 AD3d at 176-178; Grasso v Mathew, 164 AD2d 476).
In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.
[Prior Case History: 21 Misc 3d 1149(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 52567(U).]