Kruteck v. Schimmel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kruteck v. Schimmel

27 A.D.2d 837, 278 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4723

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 837 (Kruteck v. Schimmel) 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

Kruteck v. Schimmel, 27 A.D.2d 837, 278 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 23, 1966, which denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment, reversed and summary judgment granted in favor of appellant, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the statements alleged to be defamatory were qualifiedly privileged in view of the responsibility, and prominence in the community, of plaintiff’s position as auditor of the Westchester Joint Water Works and in the light of the fact that plaintiff had thrust himself into the vortex of the public discussion concerning this position. Accordingly, he cannot recover damages for such statements unless he proves that the publication was made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false or not (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U. S. 75; Time, Inc., v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374; Gilberg v. Goffi, 21 A D 2d 517, affd. 15 N Y 2d 1023). In our opinion, plaintiff failed to submit evidence of actual malice sufficient to raise an issue with respect thereto. Since it appears that plaintiff has not suffered an actionable wrong, it is our conclusion that appellant’s motion for summary judgment should have been [838]*838granted (Gilberg v. Goffi, supra). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 23, 1966, which denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment, reversed and summary judgment granted in favor of appellant, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the statements alleged to be defamatory were qualifiedly privileged in view of the responsibility, and prominence in the community, of plaintiff’s position as auditor of the Westchester Joint Water Works and in the light of the fact that plaintiff had thrust himself into the vortex of the public discussion concerning this position. Accordingly, he cannot recover damages for such statements unless he proves that the publication was made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false or not (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U. S. 75; Time, Inc., v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374; Gilberg v. Goffi, 21 A D 2d 517, affd. 15 N Y 2d 1023). In our opinion, plaintiff failed to submit evidence of actual malice sufficient to raise an issue with respect thereto. Since it appears that plaintiff has not suffered an actionable wrong, it is our conclusion that appellant’s motion for summary judgment should have been [838]*838granted (Gilberg v. Goffi, supra). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 837, 278 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kruteck-v-schimmel-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack