Fitzgerald v. Herald Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzgerald v. Herald Co.

119 A.D.2d 974, 500 N.Y.S.2d 871, 12 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2264, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55900

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

DecidedApril 4, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.2d 974 (Fitzgerald v. Herald Co.) 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

Fitzgerald v. Herald Co., 119 A.D.2d 974, 500 N.Y.S.2d 871, 12 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2264, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court erred in granting the motion of defendants Kriss and The Herald Company for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint in a libel action. A factual issue exists whether the reporter, who drew erroneous conclusions from his observations at a DWI roadblock and did not attempt to verify the identity of the person arrested with any official source, acted with gross irresponsibility within the meaning of Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch (38 NY2d 196, 199). The court also erred in finding that plaintiff has not alleged actionable damages. Her complaint alleges injury to credit and reputation as well as emotional distress and anguish (see, Hogan v Herald Co., 84 AD2d 470, 481, affd for reasons in opn below 58 NY2d 630). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Lynch, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court erred in granting the motion of defendants Kriss and The Herald Company for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint in a libel action. A factual issue exists whether the reporter, who drew erroneous conclusions from his observations at a DWI roadblock and did not attempt to verify the identity of the person arrested with any official source, acted with gross irresponsibility within the meaning of Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch (38 NY2d 196, 199). The court also erred in finding that plaintiff has not alleged actionable damages. Her complaint alleges injury to credit and reputation as well as emotional distress and anguish (see, Hogan v Herald Co., 84 AD2d 470, 481, affd for reasons in opn below 58 NY2d 630). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Lynch, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 974, 500 N.Y.S.2d 871, 12 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2264, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-herald-co-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack