Kaminester v. Weintraub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaminester v. Weintraub

131 A.D.2d 440, 516 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47899

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

DecidedJune 1, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 131 A.D.2d 440 (Kaminester v. Weintraub) 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

Kaminester v. Weintraub, 131 A.D.2d 440, 516 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), entered November 27, 1985, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, with leave to renew after the completion of pretrial discovery proceedings.

[441]*441Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff has demonstrated that discovery is needed to produce evidence of malice on the part of the defendant Dr. Weintraub. Thus, Special Term did not err in denying the defendants’ motion, with leave to renew following discovery (see, La Scala v D’Angelo, 104 AD2d 930; Harris v Alcan Aluminum Corp., 91 AD2d 830, affd 58 NY2d 1036). Moreover, inasmuch as the defendant Dr. Weintraub accused the plaintiff of personal dishonesty, the allegedly libelous statements are not constitutionally protected expressions of opinion (see, Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 42 NY2d 369, 381-382, cert denied 434 US 969). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), entered November 27, 1985, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, with leave to renew after the completion of pretrial discovery proceedings.

[441]*441Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff has demonstrated that discovery is needed to produce evidence of malice on the part of the defendant Dr. Weintraub. Thus, Special Term did not err in denying the defendants’ motion, with leave to renew following discovery (see, La Scala v D’Angelo, 104 AD2d 930; Harris v Alcan Aluminum Corp., 91 AD2d 830, affd 58 NY2d 1036). Moreover, inasmuch as the defendant Dr. Weintraub accused the plaintiff of personal dishonesty, the allegedly libelous statements are not constitutionally protected expressions of opinion (see, Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 42 NY2d 369, 381-382, cert denied 434 US 969). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 440, 516 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaminester-v-weintraub-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack