John's 53-26, Inc. v. Chilton Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

John's 53-26, Inc. v. Chilton Co.

83 A.D.2d 830, 441 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15202

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

DecidedAugust 3, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 83 A.D.2d 830 (John's 53-26, Inc. v. Chilton Co.) 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

John's 53-26, Inc. v. Chilton Co., 83 A.D.2d 830, 441 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a libel action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated October 17, 1980, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Order modified by adding thereto, after the word “granted”, the following: “except that defendant’s [831]*831motion is denied insofar as it seeks dismissal of that part of the complaint which is based upon the photographs referred to in paragraphs‘T and ‘8’ of the complaint and the respective headline and caption accompanying them.” As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the plaintiff. While we concur with Special Term that the article as a whole does not reasonably admit of an interpretation defamatory to the plaintiff, we believe that such a meaning may reasonably be ascribed to the photograph and headline which appear at the beginning of the article and to the other photograph depicting plaintiff’s gas station and the caption accompanying that photograph, when these are considered apart from the text of the article. (See Restatement, Torts 2d, § 563; Gambuzza v Time, Inc., 18 AD2d 351, 353-354; Schermerhorn v Rosenberg, 73 AD2d 276; Shubert v Variety, Inc., 128 Misc 428, 430, affd 221 App Div 856.) It is for the jury to decide whether the defamatory sense was the meaning conveyed. (See Schermerhorn v Rosenberg, supra, p 283.) Hopkins, J.P., Mangano, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In a libel action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated October 17, 1980, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Order modified by adding thereto, after the word “granted”, the following: “except that defendant’s [831]*831motion is denied insofar as it seeks dismissal of that part of the complaint which is based upon the photographs referred to in paragraphs‘T and ‘8’ of the complaint and the respective headline and caption accompanying them.” As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the plaintiff. While we concur with Special Term that the article as a whole does not reasonably admit of an interpretation defamatory to the plaintiff, we believe that such a meaning may reasonably be ascribed to the photograph and headline which appear at the beginning of the article and to the other photograph depicting plaintiff’s gas station and the caption accompanying that photograph, when these are considered apart from the text of the article. (See Restatement, Torts 2d, § 563; Gambuzza v Time, Inc., 18 AD2d 351, 353-354; Schermerhorn v Rosenberg, 73 AD2d 276; Shubert v Variety, Inc., 128 Misc 428, 430, affd 221 App Div 856.) It is for the jury to decide whether the defamatory sense was the meaning conveyed. (See Schermerhorn v Rosenberg, supra, p 283.) Hopkins, J.P., Mangano, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 830, 441 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johns-53-26-inc-v-chilton-co-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack