Katapodis v. Brooklyn Spectator, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katapodis v. Brooklyn Spectator, Inc.

261 A.D. 967, 26 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8360

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 967 (Katapodis v. Brooklyn Spectator, 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

Katapodis v. Brooklyn Spectator, Inc., 261 A.D. 967, 26 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for an injury due to an alleged libelous publication. Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because the publication is not libelous per se and no special damages are pleaded, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to grant the motion on the authority of Birmingham v. Daily Mirror, Inc. (ante, p. 838). [See post, p. 988.]

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

Action to recover damages for an injury due to an alleged libelous publication. Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because the publication is not libelous per se and no special damages are pleaded, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to grant the motion on the authority of Birmingham v. Daily Mirror, Inc. (ante, p. 838). [See post, p. 988.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 967, 26 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katapodis-v-brooklyn-spectator-inc-nyappdiv-1941.