AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

KATHLEEN A. BURDICK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VERIZON NEW YORK, INC., BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION, NYNEX CORPORATION, NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, TELESECTOR RESOURCES GROUP, INC., DAVID G. AVERILL, JR., LINDA D. CASLER, DEBBY HUGHES, LOU DI BERARDINO, CANDACE D. SMITH, AND MARY S. BELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS MANAGERS AT VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VERIZON NEW YORK, INC., BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION, NYNEX CORPORATION, NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, TELESECTOR RESOURCES GROUP, INC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Verizon Communications, Inc. (Verizon), its corporate affiliates and its named employees (defendants) seeking dismissal of the first 11 causes of action in the complaint. The 1st through 7th, 9th and 11th causes of action sound in slander per se and are based on plaintiff's allegations that Verizon employees stated that plaintiff "hit" or "took a swing at" a woman crossing the picket line in her car while plaintiff was engaged in a labor protest. The alleged statements of the Verizon employees do not as a matter of law constitute slander per se because those statements do not "charge plaintiff with an indictable offense" ( Privitera v. Town of Phelps, 79 A.D.2d 1, 4, appeal dismissed 53 N.Y.2d 796). Statements "are not slanderous per se unless they specify a crime or a crime is readily apparent from properly pleaded innuendo" ( id. at 5). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, by allegedly stating that plaintiff "hit" or "took a swing at" another person, the Verizon employees did not thereby specify that the person was injured, which is a necessary element of an assault charge ( see generally Penal Law 120.00-120.12). The eighth cause of action, sounding in libel per se, was also properly dismissed because the written allegations that plaintiff "hit" or "took a swing at" another person "fall short of being `reasonably susceptible to a connotation of criminality'" and thus are not actionable as libel per se without proof of damages ( Clemente v. Impastato, 274 A.D.2d 771, 774). Finally, the 10th cause of action was properly dismissed because the tort of civil conspiracy is not recognized in New York ( see McCarthy v. Weaver, 99 A.D.2d 652).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BURDICK v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC
(May 2, 2003)