Plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for libel per se based upon defendants' alleged postings on the internet, attributed to plaintiff, which plaintiff asserts damaged her business of selling luxury handbags on line ( see Rail v Hellman, 284 AD2d 113). Furthermore, the pornographic pictures and statements linked to plaintiff's name and photograph on various web sites "allegedly falsely imply[] that [s]he is sexually lustful and promiscuous" ( Rejent v Liberation Pubis., 197 AD2d 240, 243; compare Bement v N.Y.P. Holdings, 307 AD2d 86, 92, lv denied 100 NY2d 510).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
[ See 20 Misc 3d 1127(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51645(U).]