De Carlo v. Catalfano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Carlo v. Catalfano

42 A.D.2d 823, 345 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3873

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 6, 1973·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: In this action for libel brought by the President of a Union Local against other officers of the Union Local, defendants on their appEcation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint have established the defenses of truth and qualified privilege as a matter of law. The alleged libelous letter was prepared by defendants for distribution to Union members only just prior to a Union meeting. That some police officers present at the Union meeting may have seen the letter would not destroy the qualified privilege, the publication appearing to have been made in good faith and for the [824] members of the Union alone. No evidentiary support is given plaintiff’s con- ' tention that the defendants’ letter was motivated by “ actual malice ”, “ ill will”, or “personal spite” (see Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan, 7 N Y 2d 56). (Appeal from part of order of Monroe Special Term denying summary judgment in libel action.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Moule, Simons and Henry, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: In this action for libel brought by the President of a Union Local against other officers of the Union Local, defendants on their appEcation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint have established the defenses of truth and qualified privilege as a matter of law. The alleged libelous letter was prepared by defendants for distribution to Union members only just prior to a Union meeting. That some police officers present at the Union meeting may have seen the letter would not destroy the qualified privilege, the publication appearing to have been made in good faith and for the [824] members of the Union alone. No evidentiary support is given plaintiff’s con- ' tention that the defendants’ letter was motivated by “ actual malice ”, “ ill will”, or “personal spite” (see Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan, 7 N Y 2d 56). (Appeal from part of order of Monroe Special Term denying summary judgment in libel action.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Moule, Simons and Henry, JJ.

De Carlo v. Catalfano, 42 A.D.2d 823, 345 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

42 A.D.2d 823 (De Carlo v. Catalfano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related