Alicea v. Ogden Newspapers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alicea v. Ogden Newspapers, Inc.

115 A.D.2d 233, 495 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54478

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 115 A.D.2d 233 (Alicea v. Ogden Newspapers, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alicea v. Ogden Newspapers, Inc., 115 A.D.2d 233, 495 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendant’s motion granted. Memorandum: Defendant incorrectly reported that plaintiff was convicted of sale of a controlled substance, when in fact, after a trial on such charges, he has been convicted of the lesser crime of possession. A retraction was printed. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s action should have been granted because plaintiff failed to show any evidence that defendant had acted in a grossly irresponsible manner, an essential element of his cause of action (see, Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 NY2d 196). (Appeals from order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J.—libel.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Pine, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendant’s motion granted. Memorandum: Defendant incorrectly reported that plaintiff was convicted of sale of a controlled substance, when in fact, after a trial on such charges, he has been convicted of the lesser crime of possession. A retraction was printed. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s action should have been granted because plaintiff failed to show any evidence that defendant had acted in a grossly irresponsible manner, an essential element of his cause of action (see, Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 NY2d 196). (Appeals from order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J.—libel.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 233, 495 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alicea-v-ogden-newspapers-inc-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack