The record demonstrates that defendant is responsible for blog and website postings that, on their face, impugned plaintiff‘s chastity and therefore were libelous per se (seeAva v NYP Holdings, Inc., 64 AD3d 407, 412 [2009], lv denied14 NY3d 702 [2010]). Defendant admitted that he created the website that posted the remarks and pornographic materials and that he alone possessed the password to get into the website, and plaintiff‘s unrebutted expert evidence linked defendant‘s IP addresses and a telephone number to the subject website and to his own business website. The evidence adduced at the hearing on damages demonstrates disinterested malevolence on defendant‘s part, which establishes plaintiff‘s entitlement to attorneys’ fees and supports the court‘s award of both compensatory and punitive damages (seeChiavarelli v Williams, 281 AD2d 255 [2001]). To the extent plaintiff challenges the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded, his arguments are unavailing, since no appeal lies from a decision directing the parties to settle order, and there is no indication in the record that an order was settled. Nor do we reach defendant‘s challenge to an order that sealed the pleadings and an exhibit, since the record contains no notice of appeal therefrom. Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.
