Barnes v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnes v. City of New York

33 A.D.2d 999, 307 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5589

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 999 (Barnes v. City of New York) 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

Barnes v. City of New York, 33 A.D.2d 999, 307 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment entered June 12, 1969, dismissing complaint as against defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondents, on the ground that respondents’ communication of the alleged defamatory statements was privileged. The affidavits in support of this motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action asserted that the alleged communication was privileged, and from the affidavits and the complaint it appears that qualifiedly such is the case. In this posture, plaintiff was obliged to come forward with evidentiary facts from which respondents’ alleged malice might be inferred. (Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan, 7 N Y 2d 56; Vecino v. Martinez, 24 A D 2d 429; CPLR 3211, subd. [c].) This he failed to do. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Markewieh, Steuer and Maeken, JJ.

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

— Judgment entered June 12, 1969, dismissing complaint as against defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondents, on the ground that respondents’ communication of the alleged defamatory statements was privileged. The affidavits in support of this motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action asserted that the alleged communication was privileged, and from the affidavits and the complaint it appears that qualifiedly such is the case. In this posture, plaintiff was obliged to come forward with evidentiary facts from which respondents’ alleged malice might be inferred. (Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan, 7 N Y 2d 56; Vecino v. Martinez, 24 A D 2d 429; CPLR 3211, subd. [c].) This he failed to do. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Markewieh, Steuer and Maeken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 999, 307 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1970.