King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Astor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Astor

249 A.D. 655, 291 N.Y.S. 488, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5410

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 655 (King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Astor) 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

King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Astor, 249 A.D. 655, 291 N.Y.S. 488, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for libel. As to defendant Moley, order granting motion to dismiss the complaint and judgment entered thereon unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to plaintiff to plead over if it be so advised. As to defendants Astor and Today Associates, Inc., order and judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to said defendants to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. If a jury should say that the language justifies the vicious meaning as being the one intended to be conveyed, the publication is libelous per se. Where words are capable of more than one interpretation, the true sense in which they were meant is for the jury. If that sense be the vicious one for which plaintiff contends, then the language adversely affects the integrity and good repute of the plaintiff business corporation. It imports that it is a concern whose customers will find it unreliable and unsafe to deal with. The fact that it holds itself out to be a price-wrecker does not mean that it holds itself out to be a price-wrecker by dishonorable means. If it is a price-wrecker or cutter by honorable means, no opprobrium may be attached to it with impunity by such a publication as that of which complaint is made, if a vicious meaning be found by a jury to be the one intended. (First Nat. Bank v. Winters, 225 N. Y. 47; Samson United Corporation v. Dover Mfg. Co., 233 App. Div. 155; Sullivan v. Daily Mirror, Inc., 232 id. 507; Kloor v. New York Herald Co., 200 id. 90.) There is, however, in the complaint no allegation that fastens responsibility on defendant Moley for the alleged libelous article. The complaint is insufficient as to him. If plaintiff be so advised, an amended complaint with the needful allegation may be served. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Action for libel. As to defendant Moley, order granting motion to dismiss the complaint and judgment entered thereon unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to plaintiff to plead over if it be so advised. As to defendants Astor and Today Associates, Inc., order and judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to said defendants to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. If a jury should say that the language justifies the vicious meaning as being the one intended to be conveyed, the publication is libelous per se. Where words are capable of more than one interpretation, the true sense in which they were meant is for the jury. If that sense be the vicious one for which plaintiff contends, then the language adversely affects the integrity and good repute of the plaintiff business corporation. It imports that it is a concern whose customers will find it unreliable and unsafe to deal with. The fact that it holds itself out to be a price-wrecker does not mean that it holds itself out to be a price-wrecker by dishonorable means. If it is a price-wrecker or cutter by honorable means, no opprobrium may be attached to it with impunity by such a publication as that of which complaint is made, if a vicious meaning be found by a jury to be the one intended. (First Nat. Bank v. Winters, 225 N. Y. 47; Samson United Corporation v. Dover Mfg. Co., 233 App. Div. 155; Sullivan v. Daily Mirror, Inc., 232 id. 507; Kloor v. New York Herald Co., 200 id. 90.) There is, however, in the complaint no allegation that fastens responsibility on defendant Moley for the alleged libelous article. The complaint is insufficient as to him. If plaintiff be so advised, an amended complaint with the needful allegation may be served. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 655, 291 N.Y.S. 488, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-kullen-grocery-co-v-astor-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack