Cheatham v. Westchester County Publishers, Inc.

New York Supreme Court

Cheatham v. Westchester County Publishers, Inc.

20 Misc. 2d 770, 73 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1945

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 11, 1947

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 Misc. 2d 770 (Cheatham v. Westchester County Publishers, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cheatham v. Westchester County Publishers, Inc., 20 Misc. 2d 770, 73 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1945 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

James W. Bailey, J.

Motion to dismiss the complaint in an action for libel upon the ground (hat if does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The publication does not tend to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, shame, obloquy, [771]*771odium or contempt in the minds oi‘ right-thinking persons. (Sydney v. Macfadden Newspaper Pub. Corp., 242 N. Y. 208.) Neither does it appreciably affect plaintiff’s reputation or tend to make him shunned or avoided. (Kiwmerle v. New York Evening Journal, 262 N. Y. 99; Katapodis v. Brooklyn Spectator, 287 N. Y. 17, 21.) No reasonable interpretation of the words used could render them defamatory. The article merely purports to be a humorous account of a mistake concededly made and in no way impugns plaintiff’s honesty, workmanship or business integrity. The publication is therefore not libelous per se and inasmuch as no special damages are alleged the complaint does not state a cause of.action. (Balabanoff v. Hearst Cons. Pubs., 294 N. Y. 351.)

Motion to dismiss granted with leave to plead anew alleging special damages if so advised. Submit order.

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

James W. Bailey, J.

Motion to dismiss the complaint in an action for libel upon the ground (hat if does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The publication does not tend to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, shame, obloquy, [771]*771odium or contempt in the minds oi‘ right-thinking persons. (Sydney v. Macfadden Newspaper Pub. Corp., 242 N. Y. 208.) Neither does it appreciably affect plaintiff’s reputation or tend to make him shunned or avoided. (Kiwmerle v. New York Evening Journal, 262 N. Y. 99; Katapodis v. Brooklyn Spectator, 287 N. Y. 17, 21.) No reasonable interpretation of the words used could render them defamatory. The article merely purports to be a humorous account of a mistake concededly made and in no way impugns plaintiff’s honesty, workmanship or business integrity. The publication is therefore not libelous per se and inasmuch as no special damages are alleged the complaint does not state a cause of.action. (Balabanoff v. Hearst Cons. Pubs., 294 N. Y. 351.)

Motion to dismiss granted with leave to plead anew alleging special damages if so advised. Submit order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Misc. 2d 770, 73 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheatham-v-westchester-county-publishers-inc-nysupct-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack