Klemin v. Smith

250 A.D. 269, 293 N.Y.S. 981, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8322

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The first,” third,” seventh ” and eighth ” causes of action should be dismissed because the alleged defamatory matters set forth therein are not libelous per se.

As the language of the alleged libelous matter in each of the remaining causes of action is susceptible of an innocent as well as of a disgraceful meaning, the question becomes one of fact for a jury to decide. (Demos v. N. Y. E. J. Publishing Co., 210 N. Y. 13; Briarcliff L. Hotel v. C.-S. Publishers, 260 id. 106, 118; Zbyszko v. N. Y. American, Inc., 228 App. Div. 277, 279.)

The order should be modified by dismissing the first,” third,” “ seventh ” and “ eighth ” causes of action and as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley and Cohn, JJ., concur; Dore, J., dissents in part.

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

Klemin v. Smith, 250 A.D. 269, 293 N.Y.S. 981, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

250 A.D. 269 (Klemin v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Demos v. New York Evening Journal Publishing Co.
103 N.E. 771 (New York Court of Appeals, 1913)
Hays v. American Defense Society, Inc.
169 N.E. 380 (New York Court of Appeals, 1929)
Zbyszko v. New York American, Inc.
228 A.D. 277 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1930)