Fleischer v. Champion Sports Publishing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fleischer v. Champion Sports Publishing Corp.

13 A.D.2d 993, 216 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10214

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

DecidedJune 14, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 993 (Fleischer v. Champion Sports Publishing Corp.) 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

Fleischer v. Champion Sports Publishing Corp., 13 A.D.2d 993, 216 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for libel, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 25, 1961, denying their motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency, pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil [994]*994Practice. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The defendants’ time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the complaint is not insufficient for failure to allege special damages, because a jury may reasonably find that the article tends to disparage plaintiff in his occupation as a judge of boxing bouts. Since the article is alleged to refer specifically to plaintiff and is libelous per se, or so a jury may find, special damages need not be alleged (Polakoff v. Hill, 261 App. Div. 777). Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur; Christ, J., dissents and votes to grant the motion, on the grounds: (1) that the article complained of was fair comment and was within the legitimate range of sports writing; and (2) that, in any event, special damage must be alleged.

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

In an action to recover damages for libel, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 25, 1961, denying their motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency, pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil [994]*994Practice. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The defendants’ time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the complaint is not insufficient for failure to allege special damages, because a jury may reasonably find that the article tends to disparage plaintiff in his occupation as a judge of boxing bouts. Since the article is alleged to refer specifically to plaintiff and is libelous per se, or so a jury may find, special damages need not be alleged (Polakoff v. Hill, 261 App. Div. 777). Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur; Christ, J., dissents and votes to grant the motion, on the grounds: (1) that the article complained of was fair comment and was within the legitimate range of sports writing; and (2) that, in any event, special damage must be alleged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 993, 216 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleischer-v-champion-sports-publishing-corp-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack