Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered July 23, 2008, which, inter alia, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the cause of action for libel per se, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.
Plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for libel per se based upon defendants' alleged postings on the internet, attributed to plaintiff, which plaintiff asserts damaged her business of selling luxury handbags online (see Rall v Hellman, 284 AD2d 113 ). Furthermore, the pornographic pictures and statements linked to plaintiff's name and photograph on various websites "allegedly falsely imply that [s]he is sexually lustful and promiscuous" (Rejent v Liberation Publs., 197 AD2d 240, 243 ; compare Bement v N.Y.P. Holdings, 307 AD2d 86, 92 , lv denied 100 NY2d 510 ).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...