KAMINESTER v. WEINTRAUB

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff has demonstrated that discovery is needed to produce evidence of malice on the part of the defendant Dr. Weintraub. Thus, Special Term did not err in denying the defendants' motion, with leave to renew following discovery (see, La Scala v D'Angelo, 104 A.D.2d 930; Harris v Alcan Aluminum Corp., 91 A.D.2d 830, affd 58 N.Y.2d 1036). Moreover, inasmuch as the defendant Dr. Weintraub accused the plaintiff of personal dishonesty, the allegedly libelous statements are not constitutionally protected expressions of opinion (see, Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart Winston, 42 N.Y.2d 369, 381-382, cert denied 434 U.S. 969). Mangano, J.P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.