Biegeleisen v. Jacobson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Biegeleisen v. Jacobson

198 A.D.2d 57, 603 N.Y.S.2d 148

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 57 (Biegeleisen v. Jacobson) 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

Biegeleisen v. Jacobson, 198 A.D.2d 57, 603 N.Y.S.2d 148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 17, 1992, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this defamation action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The statements defendant made during his testimony as an expert witness in the medical malpractice action that had been brought against plaintiff cannot be the subject of a defamation action unless they constituted falsehoods "so obviously irrelevant as to warrant an inference of express malice” (Tolisano v Texon, 144 AD2d 267, 272 [Smith, J., dissenting], revd for reasons stated in dissenting mem 75 NY2d 732). Such is not here the case. Although blunt and degrading, the statements were primarily expressions of opinion, not of facts, [58]*58and in any event, were directly relevant to defendant’s opinion concerning the status of sclerotherapy as an accepted medical practice for cosmetic surgery. Nor does it avail plaintiff to argue that certain of defendant’s statements were not only factually false but perjurious.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 17, 1992, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this defamation action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The statements defendant made during his testimony as an expert witness in the medical malpractice action that had been brought against plaintiff cannot be the subject of a defamation action unless they constituted falsehoods "so obviously irrelevant as to warrant an inference of express malice” (Tolisano v Texon, 144 AD2d 267, 272 [Smith, J., dissenting], revd for reasons stated in dissenting mem 75 NY2d 732). Such is not here the case. Although blunt and degrading, the statements were primarily expressions of opinion, not of facts, [58]*58and in any event, were directly relevant to defendant’s opinion concerning the status of sclerotherapy as an accepted medical practice for cosmetic surgery. Nor does it avail plaintiff to argue that certain of defendant’s statements were not only factually false but perjurious.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 57, 603 N.Y.S.2d 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biegeleisen-v-jacobson-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack