| Murphy v City of New York |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01346 [59 AD3d 301] |
| February 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| John J. Murphy, Appellant, v City of New York et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), forrespondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered July 8, 2008, whichgranted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.
The complaint failed to establish all the elements of defamation, inasmuch as plaintiff didnot allege the time, the manner and the persons to whom the publication was made (Seltzer vFields, 20 AD2d 60, 64 [1963], affd 14 NY2d 624 [1964]), nor did he identify theperson who made it. In any event, the statements allegedly issued by these defendants werecontained in an investigative report and were protected by at least a qualified privilege (seeAquilone v City of New York, 262 AD2d 13 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d819 [1999]). Moreover, the statements were substantially true and to the extent that they may nothave been, plaintiff failed to offer evidence of malice or reckless disregard for the truth (seeFoster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 751-752 [1996]).
As to the cause of action for tortious interference with prospective employment, plaintifffailed to demonstrate the existence of a job offer, and failed to submit evidence sufficient to raiseany issue of fact as to whether defendants acted with the sole purpose of harming him or engagedin 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], lvdenied 83 NY2d 756 [1994]). Nor did plaintiff establish that he would have been offered thejob "but for" defendants' alleged bad acts (see Union Car Adv. Co. v Collier, 263 NY386, 401 [1934]; Slatkin v Lancer LithoPackaging Corp., 33 AD3d 421 [2006]).
Finally, plaintiff's allegations that defendants violated sections 803 and 805 of the New YorkCity Charter are without merit in that those provisions relating to the conduct of investigationsand reports to individuals involved do not mandate that reports be kept confidential.[*2]
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions andfind them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.[See 2008 NY Slip Op 31926(U).]