Gilligan v. Farmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gilligan v. Farmer

30 A.D.2d 26, 289 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4169

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

DecidedApril 25, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 26 (Gilligan v. Farmer) 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

Gilligan v. Farmer, 30 A.D.2d 26, 289 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

In this appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint sounding in libel, we agree with the dis[27]*27senting Justice that there is nothing in plaintiff’s affidavit tending to connect the individual defendant Farmer with the alleged defamation. While a majority of the court is of the opinion that the rule announced in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U. S. 254) is applicable to the case against the defendant Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the present record does not justify summary determination of CORE’s responsibility for the poster or, if it was responsible, of the issue of actual malice.

Accordingly, the order should be modified, on the law, to the extent of granting the motion as to defendant Farmer, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, with leave to defendant CORE to renew its motion, if so advised, after joinder of issue and completion of pretrial disclosure procedures.

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

Per Curiam.

In this appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint sounding in libel, we agree with the dis[27]*27senting Justice that there is nothing in plaintiff’s affidavit tending to connect the individual defendant Farmer with the alleged defamation. While a majority of the court is of the opinion that the rule announced in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U. S. 254) is applicable to the case against the defendant Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the present record does not justify summary determination of CORE’s responsibility for the poster or, if it was responsible, of the issue of actual malice.

Accordingly, the order should be modified, on the law, to the extent of granting the motion as to defendant Farmer, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, with leave to defendant CORE to renew its motion, if so advised, after joinder of issue and completion of pretrial disclosure procedures.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 26, 289 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilligan-v-farmer-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack