Chicherchia v. Cleary

207 A.D.2d 855, 616 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9072
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 26, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 855 (Chicherchia v. Cleary) 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
Chicherchia v. Cleary, 207 A.D.2d 855, 616 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9072 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.) dated March 1, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss their counterclaim to recover damages for defamation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

For there to be recovery in libel, it must be established that the defamation was "of and concerning the plaintiff” (Gross v Cantor, 270 NY 93, 96; Bee Publ. v Cheektowaga Times, 107 AD2d 382; 43A NY Jur 2d, Defamation and Privacy, § 44; Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 111, at 783 [5th ed]). The burden, it has been held, "is not a light one” (Geisler v Petrocelli, 616 F2d 636, 639). The party alleging defamation need not be named in the publication but, if, as is the case here, he or she is not, that party must sustain the burden of pleading and proving that the defamatory statement referred to him or her [856]*856(Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 111, at 783 [5th ed]). The reference to the party alleging defamation may be indirect and may be shown by extrinsic facts. But where extrinsic facts are relied upon to prove such reference the party alleging defamation must show that it is reasonable to conclude that the publication refers to him or her and the extrinsic facts upon which that conclusion is based were known to those who read or heard the publication (Geisler v Petrocelli, supra, at 639; Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 111, at 783 [5th ed]).

The defendants failed to sustain their burden in this case. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lazar v. City of New York
S.D. New York, 2023
US Dominion, Inc. v. Newsmax Media, Inc.
Superior Court of Delaware, 2022
US Dominion, Inc. v. Fox News Network, LLC
Superior Court of Delaware, 2021
Elias v. Massimillo
2018 NY Slip Op 7701 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Elias v. Rolling Stone LLC
Second Circuit, 2017
Greenberg v. Spitzer
2017 NY Slip Op 6432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v. CBS News Inc.
65 N.E.3d 35 (New York Court of Appeals, 2016)
Elias v. Rolling Stone LLC
192 F. Supp. 3d 383 (S.D. New York, 2016)
Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v. CBS News Inc.
132 A.D.3d 82 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Lihong Dong v. Ming Hai
108 A.D.3d 599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Excellus Health Plan, Inc. v. Tran
287 F. Supp. 2d 167 (W.D. New York, 2003)
Cavanagh v. Cathedral Preparatory Seminary
284 A.D.2d 360 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Jaszai v. Christie's
279 A.D.2d 186 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Seymour v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.
215 A.D.2d 971 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 A.D.2d 855, 616 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicherchia-v-cleary-nyappdiv-1994.