Bosco v. Curtin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bosco v. Curtin

291 A.D.2d 424, 737 N.Y.S.2d 534, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1631

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 424 (Bosco v. Curtin) 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

Bosco v. Curtin, 291 A.D.2d 424, 737 N.Y.S.2d 534, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for libel, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated April 12, 2001, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss his first and second causes of action for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the alleged written statements did not address the plaintiffs professional status as a librarian and, thus, were not libelous per se (see, Ram v Moritt, 205 AD2d 516; Mihalakis v Committee of Interns & Residents, 162 AD2d 371). As the plaintiff failed to plead special damages with sufficient particularity, the alleged statements were not actionable (see, Ram v Moritt, supra; L.W.C. Agency v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 125 AD2d 371). Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for libel, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated April 12, 2001, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss his first and second causes of action for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the alleged written statements did not address the plaintiffs professional status as a librarian and, thus, were not libelous per se (see, Ram v Moritt, 205 AD2d 516; Mihalakis v Committee of Interns & Residents, 162 AD2d 371). As the plaintiff failed to plead special damages with sufficient particularity, the alleged statements were not actionable (see, Ram v Moritt, supra; L.W.C. Agency v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 125 AD2d 371). Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 424, 737 N.Y.S.2d 534, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bosco-v-curtin-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack