Filed Date: 1/12/2010
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
The defamation claims against all defendants, predicated on information contained in an August 24, 2007 letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), were properly dismissed as to the individually named defendants, given the evidence that the letter was signed solely in the firm’s capacity as a limited liability partnership. However, the firm’s argument for dismissal of the defamation claims against the firm itself based on an “absolute privilege” defense is sufficiently supported, and those claims should also have been dismissed. The letter of August 24, 2007 to the SEC’s finance division potentially could be used by the SEC in a quasi-judicial proceeding. It is irrelevant whether or not the SEC actually commenced such a proceeding (Rosenberg v MetLife, Inc., 8 NY3d 359, 367-368 [2007]). Thus, the statements made in the August 24, 2007 letter are protected by an absolute privilege.
Contrary to the firm’s argument, we find no basis for limiting the alleged contract damages to claims of overcharge at this pre-answer, prediscovery juncture. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2008 NY Slip Op 31363(U).]