Majority
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff Daniel J. Melious (hereinafter the plaintiff), and his wife suing derivatively, commenced two actions, which were subsequently consolidated, to recover damages for, inter alia, defamation, prima facie tort, and loss of services. The plaintiffs’ claims arise from the plaintiffs termination as a junior varsity basketball coach and thereafter as a teacher at Monsignor Farrell High School in Staten Island, amid allegations made by the defendants Robert Besignano, the varsity basketball coach and Dean, and Robert Minall, the Assistant Dean, concerning, inter alia, the plaintiffs alleged use of steroids, inappropriate relationships with students, and racial bias toward a Hispanic student in his class. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging defamation, prima facie tort, and loss of services.
A cause of action alleging defamation is governed by a one-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 215 [3]). Such a cause of action accrues at the time the alleged statements are originally uttered (see Wilson v Erra, 94 AD3d 756 , 756 [2012]; Gigante v Arbucci, 34 AD3d 425 , 426 [2006]; Teneriello v Travelers Cos., 226 AD2d 1137 [1996]). Here, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that so much of the defamation cause of action as was premised upon alleged statements made on February 23, 2007, by Besignano, stating or implying that the plaintiff used steroids, were time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 215 (3). The plaintiffs included the allegations concerning these statements for the first time in their amended verified complaint, which was dated August 18, 2008, more than one year after these statements allegedly were uttered. Moreover, as the original complaint gave no notice of these statements, these statements do not relate back to the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes (see CPLR 203 [f]).
The defendants also demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the entire def
We note that since the plaintiffs failed to raise any issues with respect to the causes of action alleging prima facie tort and loss of services, they have abandoned those claims on appeal (see Hoffman v Colleluori, 85 AD3d 1119 , 1121 [2011]; Iatauro v St. John’s Univ., 295 AD2d 478 [2002]).
The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 37 Misc 3d 1203 (A), 2012 NY Slip Op 51871 (U).]
Cases cited
- Wilson v. Erra 94 AD3d 756 at 756 p. 728
- Gigante v. Arbucci 34 AD3d 425 at 426 p. 728
- Rosenberg v. MetLife, Inc. 8 NY3d 359 at 365 p. 729
- Thomas H. v. Paul B. 18 NY3d 580 at 586 p. 729
- Town of Massena v. Healthcare Underwriters Mutual Insurance 98 NY2d 435 at 445 p. 729
- Liberman v. Gelstein 80 NY2d 429 at 437 p. 729
- Liere v. Scully 79 AD3d 821 at 822 p. 729
- Hoffman v. Colleluori 85 AD3d 1119 at 1121 p. 729
- Iatauro v. St. John's University 295 AD2d 478 p. 729