Hobbs v. Imus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hobbs v. Imus

266 A.D.2d 36, 698 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11375

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 36 (Hobbs v. Imus) 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

Hobbs v. Imus, 266 A.D.2d 36, 698 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered July 8, 1998, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[37]*37When considered in the context of the ribald radio “shock talk” show in which they were made, it is clear that the complained of statements would not have been taken by reasonable listeners as factual pronouncements but simply as instances in which the defendant radio hosts had expressed their views over the air in the crude and hyperbolic manner that has, over the years, become their verbal stock in trade. Gratuitously tasteless and disparaging as defendants’ remarks about plaintiff were, they were nonetheless properly deemed by the motion court to have been nonfactual, and hence nonactionable, statements of opinion (see, Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 NY2d 283). In addition, as defendants recited the facts upon which their opinions were based, plaintiff’s contention that the statements constituted “mixed opinion” and were actionable as, such is unavailing (see generally, Parks v Steinbrenner, 131 AD2d 60). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered July 8, 1998, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[37]*37When considered in the context of the ribald radio “shock talk” show in which they were made, it is clear that the complained of statements would not have been taken by reasonable listeners as factual pronouncements but simply as instances in which the defendant radio hosts had expressed their views over the air in the crude and hyperbolic manner that has, over the years, become their verbal stock in trade. Gratuitously tasteless and disparaging as defendants’ remarks about plaintiff were, they were nonetheless properly deemed by the motion court to have been nonfactual, and hence nonactionable, statements of opinion (see, Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 NY2d 283). In addition, as defendants recited the facts upon which their opinions were based, plaintiff’s contention that the statements constituted “mixed opinion” and were actionable as, such is unavailing (see generally, Parks v Steinbrenner, 131 AD2d 60). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 36, 698 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobbs-v-imus-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack