Home/New York Court of Appeals/Bachrach v. Farbenfabriken Bayer AG

Bachrach v. Farbenfabriken Bayer AG

325 N.E.2d 872, 36 N.Y.2d 696, 366 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1729
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 19, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 325 N.E.2d 872 (Bachrach v. Farbenfabriken Bayer AG) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bachrach v. Farbenfabriken Bayer AG, 325 N.E.2d 872, 36 N.Y.2d 696, 366 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1729 (N.Y. 1975).

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. In this defamation action, after the completion of pretrial discovery, respondents moved for summary judgment on the ground that they did not authorize the publication of the advertisement about which plaintiff complains. The motion was supported by affidavits attesting to the fact that the publication was unauthorized and included an affidavit by the publisher, an independent foreign medical journal, averring that the advertisement complained of was printed erroneously and without the knowledge or approval of the respondents. Rather than submitting affidavits containing contrary factual averments, plaintiff concentrated his defense to the motion on an illusory assertion that the jury might disbelieve respondents’ affiants. In order to defeat summary judgment, with this stated background, it was incumbent upon plaintiff “ to submit evidentiary facts or materials, by affidavit or otherwise, rebutting the prima facie showing * * * and demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of Ultimate fact ” (Indig v. Finkelstein, 23 N Y 2d 728; CPLR 3212, subd. [b]), all "of which hé has failed to establish. Hope alone will not raise a triable issue.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Hariri v. Amper
51 A.D.3d 146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Batista v. Rivera
5 A.D.3d 308 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Stringfellow's of New York, Ltd. v. City of New York
171 Misc. 2d 376 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)
Peterson v. Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc.
171 Misc. 2d 346 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)
Fink v. New York City Department of Personnel
855 F. Supp. 68 (S.D. New York, 1994)
United National Ins. Co. v. The Tunnel, Inc. v. Jeffrey Bernstein
988 F.2d 351 (Second Circuit, 1993)
Giangotti v. Grauer
158 A.D.2d 968 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
United States v. Pilot Petroleum Associates, Inc.
712 F. Supp. 1077 (E.D. New York, 1989)
Meath v. Mishrick
120 A.D.2d 327 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Kovacs v. Xerox Corp.
119 A.D.2d 986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Spano v. County of Onondaga
105 A.D.2d 1120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Badman v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n
91 A.D.2d 858 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Friends of Animals, Inc. v. Associated Fur Manufacturers, Inc.
61 A.D.2d 141 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Central State Bank v. Kilroy
57 A.D.2d 940 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Schwartz v. Andrews
50 A.D.2d 1057 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Phillips v. Arbuse
48 A.D.2d 796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
325 N.E.2d 872, 36 N.Y.2d 696, 366 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bachrach-v-farbenfabriken-bayer-ag-ny-1975.