Forsythe v. Durham

New York Court of Appeals

Forsythe v. Durham

200 N.E. 674, 270 N.Y. 141, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1523

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 3, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 200 N.E. 674 (Forsythe v. Durham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Forsythe v. Durham, 200 N.E. 674, 270 N.Y. 141, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1523 (N.Y. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action for slander defendant is principal of a high school and plaintiff was a student therein. Defendant’s duty required him to communicate to the Board of Education the fact that rumors concerning plaintiff were circulated among the students and teachers. In so acting he was protected by a qualified privilege and is free from liability unless his conduct resulted from malice. That there was no actual malice is conceded. There is no evidence that defendant acted with a wanton and reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights or otherwise than in good faith. (Pecue v. West, 233 N. Y. 316, 322, 323.)

The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

In this action for slander defendant is principal of a high school and plaintiff was a student therein. Defendant’s duty required him to communicate to the Board of Education the fact that rumors concerning plaintiff were circulated among the students and teachers. In so acting he was protected by a qualified privilege and is free from liability unless his conduct resulted from malice. That there was no actual malice is conceded. There is no evidence that defendant acted with a wanton and reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights or otherwise than in good faith. (Pecue v. West, 233 N. Y. 316, 322, 323.)

The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 N.E. 674, 270 N.Y. 141, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forsythe-v-durham-ny-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack