Busk v. Ezyindex Products Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Busk v. Ezyindex Products Corp.

18 A.D.2d 700, 236 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6258

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 700 (Busk v. Ezyindex Products Corp.) 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

Busk v. Ezyindex Products Corp., 18 A.D.2d 700, 236 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for libel brought by the plaintiff (a former employee and sales representative of the corporate defendant) to recover damages for the writing and publication of two letters, such letters having been written by the individual defendant on the stationery of the corporate defendant, having been signed by the individual defendant as its president, and having been mailed to numerous customers of said corporate defendant, both defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 19, 1962, which denied their motion to dismiss, for patent legal insufficiency, the two causes of action alleged in the complaint (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 106, subd. 4). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Defendants’ time to answer the complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for libel brought by the plaintiff (a former employee and sales representative of the corporate defendant) to recover damages for the writing and publication of two letters, such letters having been written by the individual defendant on the stationery of the corporate defendant, having been signed by the individual defendant as its president, and having been mailed to numerous customers of said corporate defendant, both defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 19, 1962, which denied their motion to dismiss, for patent legal insufficiency, the two causes of action alleged in the complaint (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 106, subd. 4). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Defendants’ time to answer the complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 700, 236 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/busk-v-ezyindex-products-corp-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack