Murphy v. City of New York, 59 A.D.3d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Murphy v. City of New York, 59 A.D.3d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (nysupctnewyork, 2025-02-14)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2025 · confidence medium
Murphy v City of New York, 59 AD3d 301,301 [l5t Dept 2009] [affirming dismissal oftortious interference claim finding, among other things, that plaintiff "failed to demonstrate the existence of a job offer" that defendants purportedly interfered with] [citations omitted]; see also Brook v Peconic Bay Med.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) August Constr. Group, Inc. v. DeGroat
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2023 · confidence medium
The failure "to allege the time at which, the manner in which, and the persons to whom the publication was made, is fatal to a claim for defamation ( Romanello v Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. , 97 AD3d 449 , 455 [1st Dept 2012], affd as mod , 22 NY3d 881 [2013]; Murphy v City of New York , 59 AD3d 301, 301 [1st Dept 2009]; Seltzer v Fields , 20 AD2d 60, 64 [1st Dept 1963], affd , 14 NY2d 624 [1964]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brook v. Peconic Bay Med. Ctr.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to the existence of a job offer that would have been extended to him but for defendant's conduct; accordingly, the claim alleging tortious interference with prospective economic advantage was properly dismissed ( see Murphy v City of New York , 59 AD3d 301, 301 [1st Dept 2009]; Carl v Cohen , 55 AD3d 478 [1st Dept 2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brook v. Peconic Bay Med. Ctr.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to the existence of a job offer that would have been extended to him but for defendant's conduct; accordingly, the claim alleging tortious interference with prospective economic advantage was properly dismissed ( see Murphy v City of New York , 59 AD3d 301, 301 [1st Dept 2009]; Carl v Cohen , 55 AD3d 478 [1st Dept 2008]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. Livanis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Nor can he establish that he would have been hired by a third party "but for" Livanis's conduct ( Murphy v City of New York , 59 AD3d 301, 301 [1st Dept 2009]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. Livanis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Nor can he establish that he would have been hired by a third party "but for" Livanis's conduct ( Murphy v City of New York , 59 AD3d 301, 301 [1st Dept 2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Naderi v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Nowhere in the complaint does plaintiff allege the particular defamatory words or statements, who made the alleged statements, or to whom the alleged statements were made (Murphy v City of New York, 59 AD3d 301, 301 [1st Dept 2009]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sternberg v. Wiederman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
Further, the Supreme Court should have directed dismissal of the plaintiffs' tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim since the plaintiffs failed to allege that they would have received certain alleged economic benefits "but for" the defendant's interference ( see Brown v Bethlehem Terrace Assoc. , 136 AD2d 222, 225 ; see also Murphy v City of New York , 59 AD3d 301, 301 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kuczinski v. City of N.Y.
S.D. Ill. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g. , Murphy , 874 N.Y.S.2d at 407 (holding that a DOI report -- which was shared with the media -- was covered by at least a qualified privilege); Firth , 785 N.Y.S.2d at 755 (holding that an author of a report was protected by absolute privilege even though the report was published on the internet).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John J. Murphy
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 24, 2009.
59 A.D.3d 301
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered July 8, 2008, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint failed to establish all the elements of defamation, inasmuch as plaintiff did not allege the time, the manner and the persons to whom the publication was made (Seltzer v Fields, 20 AD2d 60, 64 [1963], affd 14 NY2d 624 [1964]), nor did he identify the person who made it. In any event, the statements allegedly issued by these defendants were contained in an investigative report and were protected by at least a qualified privilege (see Aquilone v City of New York, 262 AD2d 13 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 819 [1999]). Moreover, the statements were substantially true and to the extent that they may not have been, plaintiff failed to offer evidence of malice or reckless disregard for the truth (see Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 751-752 [1996]).

As to the cause of action for tortious interference with prospective employment, plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a job offer, and failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise any issue of fact as to whether defendants acted with the sole purpose of harming him or engaged in any improper or unlawful conduct (see Glen Cove Assoc. v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 240 AD2d 701 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 801 [1997]; Nassau Diagnostic Imaging & Radiation Oncology Assoc. v Winthrop-University Hosp., 197 AD2d 563 [1993], Iv denied 83 NY2d 756 [1994]). Nor did plaintiff establish that he would have been offered the job “but for” defendants’ alleged bad acts (see Union Car Adv. Co. v Collier, 263 NY 386, 401 [1934]; Slatkin v Lancer Litho Packaging Corp., 33 AD3d 421 [2006]).

[*302] Finally, plaintiffs allegations that defendants violated sections 803 and 805 of the New York City Charter are without merit in that those provisions relating to the conduct of investigations and reports to individuals involved do not mandate that reports be kept confidential.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 31926(U).]