Hirschfeld v. Institutional Inv., Inc., 208 A.D.2d 380 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Hirschfeld v. Institutional Inv., Inc., 208 A.D.2d 380 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Public Relations Society of America, Inc. v. Road Runner High Speed Online (nysupct, 2005-05-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Public Relations Society of America, Inc. v. Road Runner High Speed Online
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2005 · confidence medium
Words are “published” within the meaning of the law of libel when they are read by someone other than the person libeled and the person making the charges (see, e.g., Hirschfeld v Institutional Inv., 208 AD2d 380, 381 [1994]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McIntyre v. Manhattan Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
While no punitive damages are recoverable under the comparable New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law art 15) pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (9) (Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 179 AD2d 29 , affd 80 NY2d 490 ), as plaintiff acknowledged by consenting to dismissal of so much of her action as sought recovery under the State statute, this Court has ruled that the State legislation does not operate to preclude recovery of exemplary damages under the City ordinance (Bracker v Cohen, 204 AD2d 115 ; see also, Hirschfeld v Institutional Investor, 208 AD2d 380 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Diane Hirschfeld
v.
Institutional Investor, Inc., Appellants-Respondents
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 6, 1994.
208 A.D.2d 380
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 23, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) and (7) to strike plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages under her first cause of action for age discrimination for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and her third cause of action for breach of contract to pay severance benefits for failure to state a cause of action, but granted that part of defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for failure to state a cause of action for defamation, unanimously modified, on the law, only to the extent of denying said part of the motion and, as so modified, the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs.

This Court has recently determined that the City has authority to create a private cause of action for unlawful discrimination with punitive damages as a remedy, and that the punitive damage provisions of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-502 are not inconsistent with the State Human Rights Law (Bracker v Cohen, 204 AD2d 115). The IAS[*381] Court properly sustained plaintiff’s claim for severance benefits upon allegations that she continued in her employment with defendant corporation in reliance on its long-standing policy and history of offering such benefits (cf., Smith v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 155 AD2d 850).

However, contrary to the IAS Court’s finding that the second cause of action for defamation is insufficient because it is not alleged that the allegedly defamatory statement was published to any third party, paragraph 38 of the verified complaint and plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition allege that the statement was repeated in a March 2, 1993 letter given by defendant MacDonald to his secretary for transmission to plaintiff and others. It is well settled that dictation of a letter to a stenographer who then transcribed it, which letter was received by the plaintiff through the mails, states a cause of action for libel (Ostrowe v Lee, 256 NY 36). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.