Farrakhan v. N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farrakhan v. N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc.

238 A.D.2d 197, 656 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3759

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

DecidedApril 15, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D.2d 197 (Farrakhan v. N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc.) 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

Farrakhan v. N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc., 238 A.D.2d 197, 656 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered December 26, 1995, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted based upon uncontroverted evidence that defendants did not act with constitutional malice. Defendant Newfield’s reliance on a transcript of Dr. Shabazz’s interview, three published biographies and a documentary film on Malcolm X, the affidavit of a confessed and convicted assassin, an interview he conducted with a former close aide of Malcolm X, and the published writings and speeches of plaintiff Farrakhan conclusively demonstrates that the article was not published "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 280; Masson v New Yorker Mag., 501 US 496, 510). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ. [See, 168 Misc 2d 536.]

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered December 26, 1995, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted based upon uncontroverted evidence that defendants did not act with constitutional malice. Defendant Newfield’s reliance on a transcript of Dr. Shabazz’s interview, three published biographies and a documentary film on Malcolm X, the affidavit of a confessed and convicted assassin, an interview he conducted with a former close aide of Malcolm X, and the published writings and speeches of plaintiff Farrakhan conclusively demonstrates that the article was not published "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 280; Masson v New Yorker Mag., 501 US 496, 510). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ. [See, 168 Misc 2d 536.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 197, 656 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrakhan-v-nyp-holdings-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack