In Sborgi v. Green, 281 AD2d 230 [1st Dept 2001] the plaintiff alleged "that she was defamed by defendant, a bishop of her Church and ecclesiastical leader of her congregation, when, in connection with her employment application with a university run by the Church, he told a university official whose duties included evaluations of job applicants that plaintiff is an 'unstable person' and that 'her children are disturbed'" (id. at 230). The Court held: "While the statements were frank, the expressions used were not beyond what was necessary for the purposes of the communication, both speaker and listener having a common interest in plaintiff's character and fitness as a prospective teacher and promoter of their faith, or otherwise "so vituperative" as to warrant an inference of malice. As the IAS court concluded, suspicion, surmise and accusation are not enough to infer malice." (Id. at 230)