Kremer Construction Co. v. Garfinkel
This text of 31 A.D.2d 766 (Kremer Construction Co. v. Garfinkel) 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.
Opinion
In an action for libel, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 31, 1968, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. We are of the opinion that the defense of qualified privilege is applicable (Byam v. Collins, 111 N. Y. 143; Bingham v. Gaynor, 203 N. Y. 27). In view of the applicability of this defense it is incumbent upon plaintiff to establish by evidentiary facts its allegation of actual malice in order to overcome the defense of qualified privilege (Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N. Y., 7 N Y 2d 56). Since plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements of showing evidentiary facts as opposed to making mere eonclusory statements, the motion should have been granted. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., .concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
31 A.D.2d 766, 297 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kremer-construction-co-v-garfinkel-nyappdiv-1969.