Frommer v. Abels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frommer v. Abels

193 A.D.2d 513, 598 N.Y.S.2d 185

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

DecidedMay 20, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 513 (Frommer v. Abels) 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

Frommer v. Abels, 193 A.D.2d 513, 598 N.Y.S.2d 185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen B. Ciparick, J.), entered April 13, 1992, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action for defamation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly concluded that the complained of statements were not actionable. In separating protected opinion from actionable fact, a court must look at " 'the content of the whole communication, its tone and apparent purpose’ ” (600 W. 115th St. Corp. v Von Gutfeld, 80 NY2d 130, 145, quoting Immuno AG. v Moor-Jankowski, 77 NY2d 235, 254). Plaintiff, a travel industry specialist, had published columns criticizing travel agents for unnecessarily steering their clients towards preferred suppliers and advising consumers to avoid agents who fail to pass on their share of inflated commissions. Defendants’ statements, in their entire context, published in its travel industry trade publication, could only be reasonably interpreted by subscribers as spirited advocacy for the role of travel agents. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen B. Ciparick, J.), entered April 13, 1992, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action for defamation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly concluded that the complained of statements were not actionable. In separating protected opinion from actionable fact, a court must look at " 'the content of the whole communication, its tone and apparent purpose’ ” (600 W. 115th St. Corp. v Von Gutfeld, 80 NY2d 130, 145, quoting Immuno AG. v Moor-Jankowski, 77 NY2d 235, 254). Plaintiff, a travel industry specialist, had published columns criticizing travel agents for unnecessarily steering their clients towards preferred suppliers and advising consumers to avoid agents who fail to pass on their share of inflated commissions. Defendants’ statements, in their entire context, published in its travel industry trade publication, could only be reasonably interpreted by subscribers as spirited advocacy for the role of travel agents. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 513, 598 N.Y.S.2d 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frommer-v-abels-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack