Citation Numbers: 177 A.D.2d 965, 578 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15696
Filed Date: 11/15/1991
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/31/2024
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined
Additionally, the letter is not defamatory when interpreted in view of the extrinsic facts. Defendant’s contention that the letter impliedly attributes to him false statements is " 'strained, unreasonable and unjustified’ ” (Tracy v Newsday, Inc., 5 NY2d 134, 137). "The admitted purpose of an innuendo is to explain matter that is insufficiently expressed” (Tracy v Newsday, Inc., supra, at 136). The "extrinsic facts”, that defendant told prospective employers that he was fired and that therefore he was not bound by the restrictive covenants, do not explain any statements in the letter, but add "an entirely new and independent thought that finds no support” in the letter (Tracy v Newsday, Inc., supra, at 137). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan, A. P. J., Denmam, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.