Kovacs v. Patterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kovacs v. Patterson

5 A.D.2d 779, 169 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7295

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 779 (Kovacs v. Patterson) 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

Kovacs v. Patterson, 5 A.D.2d 779, 169 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for an alleged libel, the appeal is from an order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 106, subd. 4). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In view of the allegation that the publication in question referred to respondent as having been a friend of a named person at about the time that said person committed a bank robbery, and as a friend of such intimacy that they arranged to live in the same building, with respondent aiding in bringing about that arrangement, a sufficient cause of action was pleaded,

Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, 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 an alleged libel, the appeal is from an order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 106, subd. 4). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In view of the allegation that the publication in question referred to respondent as having been a friend of a named person at about the time that said person committed a bank robbery, and as a friend of such intimacy that they arranged to live in the same building, with respondent aiding in bringing about that arrangement, a sufficient cause of action was pleaded,

Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ,, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 779, 169 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kovacs-v-patterson-nyappdiv-1958.