Cuevas v. Harvard University Press

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cuevas v. Harvard University Press

269 A.D.2d 328, 703 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2225

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

DecidedFebruary 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 328 (Cuevas v. Harvard University Press) 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

Cuevas v. Harvard University Press, 269 A.D.2d 328, 703 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered September 15, 1999, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion, in this defamation action, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found defendants’ statements regarding plaintiff to be “reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning” (Aronson v Wiersma, 65 NY2d 592, 594), and of a kind tending “ ‘to expose a person to hatred, contempt or aversion, or to induce an evil or unsavory opinion of him in the minds of a substantial number of the community’ ” (Golub v Enquirer/Star Group, 89 NY2d 1074, 1076). Defendants’ claim of privilege pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 74 was properly rejected, inasmuch as the allegedly defamatory passages were not a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding (Corporate Training Unlimited v National Broadcasting Co., 868 F Supp 501, 508-509).

We have reviewed defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered September 15, 1999, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion, in this defamation action, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found defendants’ statements regarding plaintiff to be “reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning” (Aronson v Wiersma, 65 NY2d 592, 594), and of a kind tending “ ‘to expose a person to hatred, contempt or aversion, or to induce an evil or unsavory opinion of him in the minds of a substantial number of the community’ ” (Golub v Enquirer/Star Group, 89 NY2d 1074, 1076). Defendants’ claim of privilege pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 74 was properly rejected, inasmuch as the allegedly defamatory passages were not a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding (Corporate Training Unlimited v National Broadcasting Co., 868 F Supp 501, 508-509).

We have reviewed defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 328, 703 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuevas-v-harvard-university-press-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack