Birkmier v. Uneeda Jamaica, Inc.

259 A.D. 924, 20 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7316
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 27, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 A.D. 924 (Birkmier v. Uneeda Jamaica, 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
Birkmier v. Uneeda Jamaica, Inc., 259 A.D. 924, 20 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinion

Action based on alleged libel and duress. Order, made on reargument, granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and granting leave to plaintiff to plead over, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Plaintiff may plead over within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. The published matter contains no words which are libelous per se, and the complaint against the respondent is insufficient in that it contains no allegation of extrinsic facts and specifications of pecuniary damage. In so far as the action is to recover a payment alleged to have been made under coercion, there are no facts pleaded to substantiate the conelusory allegation. Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Carswell, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order and deny the motion, with the following memorandum: Plaintiff was the manager of one of the theatres of his employer, a corporation. The employer had promulgated a rule that no employee should execute an assignment of his salary or earnings and that a violation of the rule would result in discharge. Respondent wrote a letter to the employer in which it was falsely stated that plaintiff had assigned to the defendant corporation ten per cent of his earnings, and with the letter there was sent a writing falsely purporting to be a copy of the alleged assignment of such earnings. There is no allegation of special damage. It is not alleged that plaintiff was discharged. The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since the publications tended to hurt and prejudice plaintiff in his calling as a manager of a theatre. (Foulger v. Newcomb, L. R. 2 Ex. 327; Moore v. Francis, 121 N. Y. 199; Seelman, Law of Libel and Slander, p. 11.)

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

Related

Brown v. Reed
10 Misc. 2d 289 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Cyran v. Finlay Straus, Inc.
277 A.D.2d 1007 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 A.D. 924, 20 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birkmier-v-uneeda-jamaica-inc-nyappdiv-1940.