Hoo v. forest Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoo v. forest Pharmaceuticals Inc.

225 A.D.2d 504, 639 N.Y.2d 693, 639 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3261

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 504 (Hoo v. forest Pharmaceuticals Inc.) 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

Hoo v. forest Pharmaceuticals Inc., 225 A.D.2d 504, 639 N.Y.2d 693, 639 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

There should be preaction disclosure to aid in bringing an action including a claim for defamation, petitioner having alleged facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case therefor except for the requirement of CPLR 3016 (a) that the particular words complained of be set forth, as to which the documents sought would clearly be helpful. The opposition to the motion failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, either the existence of a qualified privilege or the absence of malice. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

There should be preaction disclosure to aid in bringing an action including a claim for defamation, petitioner having alleged facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case therefor except for the requirement of CPLR 3016 (a) that the particular words complained of be set forth, as to which the documents sought would clearly be helpful. The opposition to the motion failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, either the existence of a qualified privilege or the absence of malice. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 504, 639 N.Y.2d 693, 639 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoo-v-forest-pharmaceuticals-inc-nyappdiv-1996.