In an action to recover damages based upon the negligent publication of a newspaper advertisement, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated May 5, 1981, as partially denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted in its entirety. Special Term correctly held, in granting defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint with respect to a cause of action sounding in negligence, that there was no basis for recovery for an allegedly negligent misstatement since no special relationship existed between the parties (see International Prods. Co. v. Erie R.R. Co., 244 N.Y. 331, 337-338; Jaillet v. Cashman, 115 Misc. 383, affd 202 App. Div. 805, affd 235 N.Y. 511). Further, a newspaper has no duty to investigate each of the advertisers who purchases space in its publication ( Goldstein v. Garlick, 65 Misc.2d 538; accord Suarez v. Underwood, 103 Misc.2d 445; Hernandez v. Underwood, 7 Med L Rep 1535; Yuhas v. Mudge, 129 N.J. Super. 207). It was error, however, to construe the complaint as also pleading a prima facie tort, since malice and special damages were not pleaded (see ATI, Inc. v. Ruder Finn, 42 N.Y.2d 454). Moreover, plaintiff failed to present evidentiary facts sufficient to establish a cause of action for prima facie tort. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted to defendant, and the entire complaint is dismissed. Damiani, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Boyers, JJ., concur.