Leganowicz v. Rone
240 A.D. 731
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1933·Published·Cited by 6 cases
Opinion
Order denying motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to answer within ten days from the entry of the order herein. The hearing before the division of licenses was not a judicial proceeding and the charges, therefore, were not protected by an absolute privilege. They may, however, have a qualified privilege. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Leganowicz v. Rone, 240 A.D. 731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).
240 A.D. 731 (Leganowicz v. Rone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Allan & Allan Arts Ltd. v. Rosenblum
201 A.D.2d 136 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak
50 A.D.2d 162 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Held v. Merendino
31 Misc. 2d 924 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Cheatum v. Wehle
159 N.E.2d 166 (New York Court of Appeals, 1959)
Cheatum v. Wehle
6 Misc. 2d 988 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Longo v. Tauriello
201 Misc. 35 (New York Supreme Court, 1951)