Gilligan v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gilligan v. King

29 A.D.2d 935, 290 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171

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

DecidedApril 25, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 935 (Gilligan v. King) 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. King, 29 A.D.2d 935, 290 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered October 27, 1965, denying motion of defendant-appellant William Epton to dismiss the complaint, sounding in libel, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements, with leave to renew the motion, if defendant-appellant is so advised, after joinder of issue and the completion of pretrial disclosure procedures. While a majority of the court are agreed that the rule announced in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U. S. 254) is applicable to this case, the present record does not lend itself to summary disposition of the issue of actual malice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli and MeGivem, JJ; Stevens, J., concurs in the following memorandum: I concur. The motion here is pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7) only. Since the basis of plaintiff’s action lies in a claimed injury to his character in the opinion of others, pretrial disclosure proceedings might well involve examination of plaintiff as to whether and under what circumstances plaintiff has ever been involved in other homicides, and what, if any, public reaction was manifested in connection therewith. [48 Misc 2d 212.]

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

Order entered October 27, 1965, denying motion of defendant-appellant William Epton to dismiss the complaint, sounding in libel, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements, with leave to renew the motion, if defendant-appellant is so advised, after joinder of issue and the completion of pretrial disclosure procedures. While a majority of the court are agreed that the rule announced in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U. S. 254) is applicable to this case, the present record does not lend itself to summary disposition of the issue of actual malice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli and MeGivem, JJ; Stevens, J., concurs in the following memorandum: I concur. The motion here is pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7) only. Since the basis of plaintiff’s action lies in a claimed injury to his character in the opinion of others, pretrial disclosure proceedings might well involve examination of plaintiff as to whether and under what circumstances plaintiff has ever been involved in other homicides, and what, if any, public reaction was manifested in connection therewith. [48 Misc 2d 212.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 935, 290 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilligan-v-king-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack