Fabian v. Amerikai Magyar Szo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fabian v. Amerikai Magyar Szo

11 A.D.2d 641, 203 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9407

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

DecidedJune 7, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 641 (Fabian v. Amerikai Magyar Szo) 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

Fabian v. Amerikai Magyar Szo, 11 A.D.2d 641, 203 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Concur — McFally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.; Breitel, J. P. and Valente, J., dissent and vote to reverse and grant the motion to dismiss the complaint in the following memorandum by Valente, J.: We would reverse the order and grant defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. [642]*642The language of the portion of the article in defendant’s newspaper, about which plaintiff complains, is not libelous as a matter of law. (See Tracy v. Newsday, 5 N Y 2d 134.) Moreover, plaintiff is not specifically mentioned in the article; there is no description of him or any identification of his calling or occupation which could reasonably identify him. In Gross v. Cantor (270 N. Y, 93, 96) it was held that an impersonal reproach of an indeterminate class is not actionable by an individual. There is no reference in the article to any specific group with which plaintiff could be identified. [22 Misc 2d 317.]

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

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Concur — McFally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.; Breitel, J. P. and Valente, J., dissent and vote to reverse and grant the motion to dismiss the complaint in the following memorandum by Valente, J.: We would reverse the order and grant defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. [642]*642The language of the portion of the article in defendant’s newspaper, about which plaintiff complains, is not libelous as a matter of law. (See Tracy v. Newsday, 5 N Y 2d 134.) Moreover, plaintiff is not specifically mentioned in the article; there is no description of him or any identification of his calling or occupation which could reasonably identify him. In Gross v. Cantor (270 N. Y, 93, 96) it was held that an impersonal reproach of an indeterminate class is not actionable by an individual. There is no reference in the article to any specific group with which plaintiff could be identified. [22 Misc 2d 317.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 641, 203 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fabian-v-amerikai-magyar-szo-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack