Leser v. Penido

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leser v. Penido

62 A.D.3d 510, 879 N.Y.S.2d 107

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

DecidedMay 14, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 510 (Leser v. Penido) 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

Leser v. Penido, 62 A.D.3d 510, 879 N.Y.S.2d 107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered July 23, 2008, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the cause of action for libel per se, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for libel per se based upon defendants’ alleged postings on the internet, attributed to plaintiff, which plaintiff asserts damaged her business of selling luxury handbags on line (see Rail v Hellman, 284 AD2d 113 [2001]). Furthermore, the pornographic pictures and statements linked to plaintiffs name and photograph on various web sites “allegedly falsely imply[ ] that [s]he is sexually lustful and [511]*511promiscuous” (Rejent v Liberation Publs., 197 AD2d 240, 243 [1994]; compare Bement v N.Y.P. Holdings, 307 AD2d 86, 92 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 510 [2003]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 20 Misc 3d 1127(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51645(11).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered July 23, 2008, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the cause of action for libel per se, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for libel per se based upon defendants’ alleged postings on the internet, attributed to plaintiff, which plaintiff asserts damaged her business of selling luxury handbags on line (see Rail v Hellman, 284 AD2d 113 [2001]). Furthermore, the pornographic pictures and statements linked to plaintiffs name and photograph on various web sites “allegedly falsely imply[ ] that [s]he is sexually lustful and [511]*511promiscuous” (Rejent v Liberation Publs., 197 AD2d 240, 243 [1994]; compare Bement v N.Y.P. Holdings, 307 AD2d 86, 92 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 510 [2003]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 20 Misc 3d 1127(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51645(11).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 510, 879 N.Y.S.2d 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leser-v-penido-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack