Wiener v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 517 (1968)

Statements made in open court during a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged if, by any view or under any circumstances, they may be considered pertinent to the litigation, unless so outrageously out of context as to permit the conclusion that they were motivated solely by a desire to defame.

Summary

An attorney, Wiener, sued a layman, Weintraub, for slander based on statements made in court. Weintraub, appearing pro se in a case he brought regarding a bad check, accused Wiener of soliciting the case when Wiener, representing the defendant in the bad check case, requested an adjournment. The court held Weintraub’s statements were protected by absolute privilege because they were pertinent to the judicial proceeding, even if not strictly relevant, and not made solely to defame Wiener. The court emphasized the importance of encouraging free speech in judicial proceedings.

Facts

Weintraub filed a complaint in City Court against Anthony Lauro for giving him a bad check.
The case was adjourned twice, requiring Weintraub to return on later dates.
On the third adjourned date, Wiener appeared in court, representing Lauro, and requested another postponement.
Weintraub stated in open court that Wiener had “just solicited [Lauro’s] case in court.”
Wiener then filed a slander action against Weintraub, claiming the statements were malicious and defamatory.

Procedural History

The defendant, Weintraub, applied for summary judgment, claiming his statements were absolutely privileged.
The lower court granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.
The appellate division affirmed this decision.
The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case to determine if the statements were indeed privileged.

Issue(s)

Whether Weintraub’s statements made in open court were protected by absolute privilege against a claim of slander.

Holding

Yes, because the statements were pertinent to the judicial proceeding, and were not