Majority
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation and a hostile work environment in violation of Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), entered October 16, 2014, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff is a sixth grade teacher at Roosevelt Middle School within the defendant Roosevelt Union Free School District (hereinafter the District). The District allegedly contracted with a nonparty entity to conduct audits and surveys of the student population at Roosevelt Middle School. In October 2012, a document generated by that entity allegedly was distributed to teachers and principals in the District, as well as to the Superintendent of Schools, by the defendant Kevin O’Connell, the Assistant Superintendent of the District. This document allegedly contained a comment by an anonymous student referring to both the teachers in the school in general, and the plaintiff in particular, as “bitches.” In 2013, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation and a hostile work environment in violation of Executive Law § 296, alleging, among other things, that the defendants failed to redact the subject comment, even though the document indicated that the District was permitted to redact “any information” that “was personally identifiable or inappropriate for public view.” In an order entered October 16, 2014, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff appeals, and we affirm.
“To state a cause of action to recover damages for defamation, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant published a
Here, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, affording the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and considering the evidentiary material submitted by the parties (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268 , 275 [1977]; Zapata v Tufenkjian, 123 AD3d 814 , 816 [2014]), the plaintiff did not have a cause of action to recover damages for defamation. The context of the alleged statement was such that a reasonable reader would have concluded that he or she was reading an opinion, and not a fact, about the plaintiff (see Rosner v Amazon.com, 132 AD3d at 837 ; Silverman v Daily News, L.P., 129 AD3d at 1055 ; Goldberg v Levine, 97 AD3d 725 , 725-726 [2012]).
Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to set forth a viable cause of action to recover damages for a hostile work environment- in violation of Executive Law § 296. The plaintiff’s allegations of a hostile work environment fell short of alleging that the workplace was “ ‘permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult . . . that [was] sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of . . . employment and create an abusive working environment’ ” (Torres v Louzoun Enters., Inc., 105 AD3d 945 , 946 [2013], quoting Kamen v Berkeley Coop. Towers Section II Corp., 98 AD3d 1086 , 1087 [2012]).
The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint.
Eng, P.J., Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Rodriguez v. Daily News, L.P. 142 AD3d 1062 at 1063 p. 1005
- Rosner v. Amazon.Com 132 AD3d 835 at 836-837 p. 1005
- Kamchi v. Weissman 125 AD3d 142 at 156 p. 1005
- Gross v. New York Times Co. 82 NY2d 146 at 152-153 p. 1005
- 600 West 115th Street Corp. v. Von Gutfeld 80 NY2d 130 at 139 p. 1005
- Silverman v. Daily News, L.P. 129 AD3d 1054 at 1055 p. 1005
- Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg 43 NY2d 268 at 275 p. 1005
- Zapata v. Tufenkjian 123 AD3d 814 at 816 p. 1005
- Goldberg v. Levine 97 AD3d 725 at 725-726 p. 1005
- Torres v. Louzoun Enterprises, Inc. 105 AD3d 945 at 946 p. 1005
- Kamen v. Berkeley Cooperative Towers Section II Corp. 98 AD3d 1086 at 1087 p. 1005