## Facts

- Nathan L. Gunsberg was a registered New York Stock Exchange member and stockbroker.
- Roseland Corporation operated a public dance ballroom.
- Gunsberg alleged that a Roseland employee, acting within the scope of employment, stated in front of many people: “Get out of this place you silly stupid senile bum; you are a trouble maker and should be confined to an asylum.”
- Gunsberg pleaded the statements as slander per se on the theory they tended to injure him in his trade, business, or profession.
- The complaint alleged no special damages (specific pecuniary loss).
- The defendant moved to dismiss the slander cause of action for failure to state a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged statements constituted slander per se by “touching” the plaintiff in his profession as a stockbroker, so that special damages need not be pleaded.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss the challenged slander cause of action for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the statements were not slander per se because they did not relate to the plaintiff’s fitness, integrity, or competence in his occupation.
- The dismissal was with leave to amend to plead special damages, if available.

## Legal Principles

- In New York, slander is actionable without pleading special damages only if it falls within a recognized per se category, including words that tend to injure a person in his trade, business, or profession.
- For the professional-injury category, the words must “touch” the plaintiff in the occupation by imputing fraud, dishonesty, misconduct, incapacity, unfitness, or lack of necessary qualifications, and must have a natural tendency to harm the plaintiff in that business.
- Mere abusive epithets or generalized insults, even if harsh or stigmatizing, are not slander per se absent a direct or inferable connection to professional competence or conduct; otherwise, special damages must be pleaded.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the slander claim because the employee’s insults, though offensive, did not impugn the plaintiff’s professional ability or conduct as a stockbroker; without alleged special damages, the pleading was legally insufficient.


Gunsberg v. Roseland Corp., 34 Misc. 2d 220, 225 N.Y.S.2d 1020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens Cnty. 1962)