Locario v Nieves

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Locario v Nieves 2013 NY Slip Op 30772(U) March 18, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 109699/2010 Judge: Lucy Billings Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. 4NED ON411712013 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY ;;L7d,y. p!; f ' L-r:$::'bJ) PRESENT: I1 ** *i. , * .C", PART *& Justice Index Number : 109699/2010 LOCARIO, PENNY vs. NIEVES, MARIA SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 DISMISS INDEX NO. MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. The following papers, numbered I )d ,were read on this motion to/$&w5S Notice of MotionlOrder to Show Cause Answering Affidavits - Exhibits -Affldavits - Exhibits Replying Affidavits w w IW s ) . INo(s). INds). I Upon the foregoing paper$, it is ordered that ik&a&Ws: p w w a 4J U O f & * 5 ' wf s l 7wws f k " * u .r v mybug w y FILED APR 17 2013 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE I CHECK ONE: . ..................................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: .............. MOTION IS: ................................................ r] CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0GRANTED @DENIED 0GRANTED IN PART 0OTHER 0SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER 0DO NOT POST [7 FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 46 -X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l _ l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Index No. 109699/2010 PENNY LOCARIO, Plaintiff DECISION AND ORDER - against - MARIA NIEVES and BETH ISIiAEL MEDICAL CENTER , Defendants NEW YORK I. BACKGROUND couNTy CLERKS o/2F,cE Plaintiff, an employee of defendant Beth Israel Medical Center, sues defendants for defamation. Plaintiff alleges that her supervisor, defendant Nieves, stated to plaintiff's and colleagues that plaintiff was a ttsnitchll Itnotto be trusted." While making these comments, Nieves brandished and read from plaintiff's private journal-. Plaintiff alleges that she kept the journal to document events and circumstances at her work, in contemplation of future whistleblowing. The original cornplaint alleged retaliation under New York Labor Law 5 741 in addition to defamation. The parties stipulated to plaintiff amending her complaint. The amended complaint no longer alleges a claim under Labor Law § 741. Defendants now move to dismiss the amended complaint based on its failure to state a claim. C.P.L.R. § 3211(a) (7). After o r a l argument and unsuccessful attempts at settlement, the court grants defendants' motion for the reasons explained below. locari0.147 1 [* 3] 11. APPLICABLE STANDARDS Upon defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3 2 l l ( a ) ( 7 ) , the court must accept the amended complaint's allegations as true, liberally construe them, and draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Walton v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 13 N.Y.3d 484 (2009); Nonnon v. Citv of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 8 2 5 , 8 2 7 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; Goshen v . Mutual Life Ins. (2002); 475, Co. of N.Y., 9 8 N.Y.2d 316, 3 2 6 Wadiak v. Pond Manasement, LLC, 101 A.D.3d 4 7 4 , 4 7 5 (1st Dep't 2 0 1 2 ) . In short, the court may dismiss a claim based on C.P.L.R. 5 3211(a)(7) only if the allegations completely fail to state a claim. Nonnon v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d at 8 2 7 ; Harris v. IG Greenpoint Corp., 7 2 A.D.3d 608, 609 (1st Dep't 2010). 111. PLAINTIFF WAIVED HER DEFAMATION CLAIM. Plaintiff's prior claim under Labor Law claim for defamation. N.Y. Labor Law § 741 precludes h e r §§ 7 4 0 ( 7 ) , 741(4); Reddinqton v . State Is. Univ. Hosp., 11 N.Y.3d 80, 8 9 ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; Minosue v . Good Samaritan Hosp., 100 A.D.3d 64, 71 (2d Dep't 2012). Plaintiff may not avoid that preclusion by subsequently amending her complaint to remove the Labor Law § 741 claim. Reddinston v. State Is. Univ. H o s p . , 11 N.Y.3d at 8 7 - 8 8 ; Bones v. Prudential Fin., Inc., 5 4 A.D.3d 589 (1st Dep't 2 0 0 8 ) Plaintiff does not allege defamatory comments against her that are distinct from the alleged incidents of retaliation in violation of Labor Law § 741. locario.147 Bones v. Prudential Fin., Inc., 54 A.D.3d 5 8 9 ; Minoque 2 [* 4] v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 100 A.D.3d at 7 3 ; Garner v. China Natural Gas, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 825, 827 (2d Dep t 2010). To the contrary, plaintiff s original complaint alleged the defamatory comments and their isolating effect as p a r t of defendants retaliation. Aff. of Rory J. McEvoy (July 27, 2012) Ex. 1 77 32- 33. IV. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO ALLEGE THE ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION. Plaintiff s own allegations admit that she was preparing a journal to document and report conditions that could jeopardize patient health and safety and forward the report to appropriate governmental and regulatory authorities. McEvoy Aff. Ex. 2 7 47. Nieves s alleged comments, that plaintiff I1isa snitch who is not to be trusted because she was compiling records of improper conduct by staff, were therefore true. I. d 21. As true statements, Nieves s comments do not support a defamation claim. Omansky v. Penninq, 101 A.D.3d 514, 515 (1st Dep t 2012). - Brian See v. Richardson, 8 7 N.Y.2d 46, 51 (1995); Konrad v. Brown, 91 A.D.3d 545, 546 (1st Dep t 2012). Insofar as Nieves s comments convey a judgment about plaintiff s character in addition to a true fact about h e r actions, o n l y facts may be defamatory, not opinions. Mann v. Abel, 10 N.Y.3d 271, 276 (2008). Because Nieves was conveying an instruction or warning for her subordinate employees to heed, whatever her attitude in conveying these comments, they are protected by a qualified privilege for comments regarding a work related common interest: locario .147 3 [* 5] here, that the work unit members be reliable, trustworthy, and loyal to one another. Bulow v . Women in Need, Inc., 89 A.D.3d 525, 526 (1st Dep't 2011); Carone v. Venator Group, Inc., 11 A.D.3d 399, 400 (1st Dep't 2 0 0 4 ) . Plaintiff does not allege the requisite malice or reckless disregard f o r the truth by Nieves, to overcome the privilege. Carone v. Venator Group, Inc., 11 A.D.3d at 400. Plaintiff also fails to allege the required special damages, a specific economic l o s s , rather than simply hurt feelings or symptoms of stress. Galasso v. Saltzman, 42 A . D . 3 d 310, 311 (1st Dep't 2007). Plaintiff does not allege that the comments caused her to be denied a promotion or even that anyone who heard the comments held authority over her promotion. Instead, plaintiff alleges that she did not receive a promotion in retaliation for keeping the journal, not because of Nieves's comments. McEvoy Aff. Ex. 2 77 36, 38. If Nieves's comments disparaged plaintiff i n her profession and therefore constitute slander per se not requiring special damages, such disparagement simply would support Nieves's entitlement, as plaintiff's sugervisor, to a qualified privilege to address the comments to plaintiff's coworkers. Bulow v. Women in Need, Inc., 89 A.D.3d at 526. For these reasons, even if plaintiff has not waived her defamation claim, she fails to plead one against the individual defendant. V. CONCLUSION Because plaintiff fails to plead a claim for defamation against the individual defendant, the court need not reach the Locario.L47 4 [* 6] issue of t h e employer defendant's vicarious liability. For all the above reasons, on the alternative grounds of waiver and failure to allege the elements of defamation, the court grants defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. C . P . L . R . 3211(a) ( 7 ) . § In light of the parties' stipulation allowing plaintiff to serve and file the amended complaint and rendering plaintiff's original complaint inoperative, the court denies as moot defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint. DATED: March 18, 2013 Zocario.l47 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.