Panghat v New York State Div. of Human Rights

Panghat v New York State Div. of Human Rights 2011 NY Slip Op 08475 Decided on November 22, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 22, 2011
Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
6123 118300

[*1]Lijo Panghat, M.D., Claim Claimant-Appellant,

v

New York State Division of Human Rights, Defendant-Respondent.




Lijo Panghat, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Ann P.
Zybert of counsel), for respondent.

Order of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered November 12, 2010, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim, and denied claimant's motion to strike defendant's affirmative defenses and for leave to amend the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Court of Claims properly granted the motion to dismiss the claim, which attempted to set forth a cause of action for defamation based on defendant's publication of a judicial decision in a related matter on its website. Civil Rights Law § 74 prohibits a civil action that alleges injury from "the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding." The privilege under that statute is absolute and applies even in the face of allegations of malice or bad faith (see Pelayo v Celle, 270 AD2d 469 [2000]), and is not altered by subsequent appeals or dismissals of any action (see Glendora v Gannett Suburban Newspapers, 201 AD2d 620 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 757 [1994]).

The Court of Claims properly denied the motion for leave to amend the claim as the proposed amendments were not viable and could not overcome the privilege under Civil Rights Law § 74 (see Sharon Ava & Co. v Olympic Tower Assoc., 259 AD2d 315 [1999]). The court also correctly declined to reach claimant's motion to strike the affirmative defenses, since it was [*2]unnecessary to do so.

We have considered claimant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 22, 2011

CLERK