Alagna v. New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co.

155 Misc. 796, 279 N.Y.S. 319, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1138
New York Supreme Court·Decided March 2, 1935·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Callahan, J.

Motion is granted and complaint dismissed.

The action is one in libel by commissioned radio operators against their former employers, a company operating a steamship line. The alleged libel is contained in a letter written by the defendant to the Federal Radio Commission protesting against the conduct of the plaintiffs in presenting a demand for new contracts of employment just at sailing time of a vessel. There is nothing ambiguous about the letter. Therefore, innuendoes are not necessary or helpful. The letter concerns plaintiffs in their professional calling. It does not allege any general incapacity, but acts of alleged misconduct or unfairness in connection with the way that the new contracts were presented. It unquestionably was sent for the purpose of having the plaintiffs disciplined. That, however, would not make it libelous per se if its tenor did not hold plaintiffs up to ridicule or contempt or charge them with dishonesty or general unfitness for their calling.

Further, I think the letter absolutely privileged. The law requires the hiring of licensed radio operators by steamship lines and provides a method of complaint by employers and hearings by the [797]*797Commission. This letter was such a complaint. The Commission was authorized to subpoena witnesses, etc., to hear and determine the charges. In doing this they were exercising a judicial function and absolute privilege should apply. Public policy would seem to dictate such a holding.

The clerk will enter judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Alagna v. New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co., 155 Misc. 796, 279 N.Y.S. 319, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1138 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1935).

155 Misc. 796 (Alagna v. New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weissman v. Mogol
118 Misc. 2d 911 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak
50 A.D.2d 162 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Melton v. Slonsky
504 P.2d 1288 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1973)
Loudin v. Mohawk Airlines, Inc.
44 Misc. 2d 926 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
Ramstead v. Morgan
347 P.2d 594 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)
Grubb v. JOHNSON
289 P.2d 1067 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1955)
Johnson v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Jacksonville
94 F. Supp. 959 (E.D. South Carolina, 1951)
Van Riper v. Tumulty
56 A.2d 611 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1948)
Fedderwitz v. Lamb
25 S.E.2d 414 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)