Barilla v. Meredith Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barilla v. Meredith Corp.

224 A.D.2d 992, 637 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1646

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 2, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this defamation action alleging that defendant, a Syracuse television station, had falsely reported on the 6:00 p.m. news that plaintiff had been charged with rape. Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant met its initial burden of showing that the broadcast did not contain the words alleged by plaintiff, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The unsworn statements submitted by plaintiff do not constitute evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to defeat the motion (see, Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813; Simms v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 192 AD2d 700, 701; Briggs v Consolidated Rail Corp., 190 AD2d 1047, 1048-1049). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Nicholson, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this defamation action alleging that defendant, a Syracuse television station, had falsely reported on the 6:00 p.m. news that plaintiff had been charged with rape. Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant met its initial burden of showing that the broadcast did not contain the words alleged by plaintiff, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The unsworn statements submitted by plaintiff do not constitute evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to defeat the motion (see, Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813; Simms v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 192 AD2d 700, 701; Briggs v Consolidated Rail Corp., 190 AD2d 1047, 1048-1049). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Nicholson, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Barilla v. Meredith Corp., 224 A.D.2d 992, 637 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

224 A.D.2d 992 (Barilla v. Meredith Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related