In Hanlin v. Sternlicht (6 AD3d 334 [1st Dept 2004]), the plaintiff alleged in her complaint that her contract as a bridge instructor with the 92nd Street YMHA/YWHA ("the Y") was not renewed because the defendant slandered the plaintiff "by telling the Y that plaintiff is 'incompetent' and that students had told him that 'they had not even learned [from plaintiff] the fundamentals' of bridge" (id. at 334). The First Department held that the plaintiff's allegations of malice were not sufficient to overcome the qualified common interest privilege because "allegations that defendant made the offending statements in order to get her job rest only on surmise and conjecture, not evidentiary facts. Certainly, the statements themselves do not go beyond the Y's interest in plaintiff's competence as an instructor and her students' attitude toward her, and are not 'otherwise 'so vituperative' as to warrant an inference of malice" (id.)