Kaufman v. Farris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaufman v. Farris

293 A.D.2d 654, 740 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3912

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

DecidedApril 22, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 654 (Kaufman v. Farris) 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

Kaufman v. Farris, 293 A.D.2d 654, 740 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered July 17, 2001, as granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant’s statements about which the plaintiff complains were expressions of opinion. Since they were accompanied by a recitation of the facts upon which such opinion was based, they are not actionable as defamation (see Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146; Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 NY2d 283; Zuber v Bordier, 135 AD2d 709). The defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, therefore, was properly granted.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered July 17, 2001, as granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant’s statements about which the plaintiff complains were expressions of opinion. Since they were accompanied by a recitation of the facts upon which such opinion was based, they are not actionable as defamation (see Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146; Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 NY2d 283; Zuber v Bordier, 135 AD2d 709). The defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, therefore, was properly granted.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 654, 740 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-farris-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack