Goldberg v Rozenberg

Holding The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the allegedly defamatory statements were protected by the absolute litigation privilege because they were made in the course of litigation and were pertinent to the proceedings. The court further held that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and that dismissal with prejudice was proper because the plaintiff did not request leave to amend.

The court’s words

the allegedly defamatory statements were made in the course of litigation and were therefore protected by an absolute privilege

2026 NY Slip Op 05907, at the official text

a 'sham exception' [to the litigation privilege] is inconsistent with the absolute privilege recognized by this Court for statements made in connection with judicial proceedings

2026 NY Slip Op 05907, at the official text

the question of malice is irrelevant to a determination of whether the litigation privilege applies, as the absolute privilege confers immunity from liability regardless of motive

2026 NY Slip Op 05907, at the official text