New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 77 (2026)

Special damages in action for slander of a woman

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 77. Special damages in action for slander of a woman. In an action
of slander of a woman imputing unchastity to her, it is not necessary to
allege or prove special damages.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: Liberman v. Gelstein, 605 N.E.2d 344 (NY 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Liberman v. Gelstein, 605 N.E.2d 344 (NY 1992). “]; Civil Rights Law § 77; 2 Seelman, Libel and Slander in the State of New York, at 869-907 [1964]; Restatement §§ 570-573; Smolla, Defamation § 7.”

Carter-Clark v. Random House, Inc., 196 Misc. 2d 1011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff raises five causes of action in her second amended verified complaint: three for libel, one pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 77, and a fifth solely for punitive damages.”

Rejent v. Liberation Publications, Inc., 22 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1826 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). “In that regard it cites, inter alia, Civil Rights Law § 77, which states, "In an action of slander of a woman imputing unchastity to her, it is not necessary to allege or prove special damages.”

King v. Tanner, 142 Misc. 2d 1004 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989). “, Matherson v Marchello, supra, at 240; compare, Civil Rights Law § 77, and Matter of Lisa M.”

Valada v. Cucciniello (N.D.N.Y. 2023). “2d at 435 (citing Civil Rights Law § 77); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 574 (1977) ("One who publishes a slander that imputes serious sexual misconduct to another is subject to liability to the other without proof of special harm").”

Smigo v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 80 A.D.3d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “The motion court properly dismissed the causes of action alleging slander per se and a violation of Civil Rights Law § 77. Plaintiff maintained that defendant Hayden committed slander per se by telling someone at the New York Post that he had viewed a video showing plaintiff…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.