Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint because of the plaintiff's failure to allege special damages (see, Aronson v Wiersma, 65 N.Y.2d 592). The allegedly defamatory statements did not address the subject of the plaintiff's ability to practice his profession and were not disparaging of his mental capacity and competence as a lawyer (cf., Van Lengen v Parr, 136 A.D.2d 964, 965). Instead, the words merely imputed misconduct unconnected with the plaintiff's profession and are not defamatory per se and, therefore, not actionable without allegations of special damages (see, Nadrowski v Wazeter, 29 A.D.2d 741, affd 23 N.Y.2d 899). Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.