Conner v. Niemiec

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conner v. Niemiec

25 A.D.2d 857, 269 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4308

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

DecidedMay 9, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 857 (Conner v. Niemiec) 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

Conner v. Niemiec, 25 A.D.2d 857, 269 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for alleged slander, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 21, 1965, which denied her motion to dismiss the eomplaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order affirmed, without costs. Defendant’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, defendant’s alleged statement that “ I’ll call the cops to raid the apartment upstairs. I know what’s going on up there and I’m not running a whorehouse” is actionable per se as an imputation of a crime involving moral turpitude (33 Am. Jur., Libel and Slander, § 30). Plaintiff’s general allegation that the words spoken pertained to her is sufficient (CPLR 3016, subd. [a]). We need not pass on the sufficiency of plaintiff’s other allegations of slander (Rager v. McCloskey, 305 N. Y. 75).

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 to recover damages for alleged slander, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 21, 1965, which denied her motion to dismiss the eomplaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order affirmed, without costs. Defendant’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, defendant’s alleged statement that “ I’ll call the cops to raid the apartment upstairs. I know what’s going on up there and I’m not running a whorehouse” is actionable per se as an imputation of a crime involving moral turpitude (33 Am. Jur., Libel and Slander, § 30). Plaintiff’s general allegation that the words spoken pertained to her is sufficient (CPLR 3016, subd. [a]). We need not pass on the sufficiency of plaintiff’s other allegations of slander (Rager v. McCloskey, 305 N. Y. 75).

Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 857, 269 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conner-v-niemiec-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack