Lewis v. Tablet Publishing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. Tablet Publishing Co.

24 A.D.2d 514, 261 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3767

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

DecidedJune 28, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 514 (Lewis v. Tablet Publishing Co.) 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

Lewis v. Tablet Publishing Co., 24 A.D.2d 514, 261 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a libel action, in which the plaintiff did not plead any special damage and in which the defendants pleaded the defense of "fair comment,” plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 15, 1963, which granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint, pursuant to rule 112 of the former Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, a reading of the whole newspaper article in question discloses that it does not, constitute libel per se as a matter of law. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider the validity of the defense of “fair comment.” Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a libel action, in which the plaintiff did not plead any special damage and in which the defendants pleaded the defense of "fair comment,” plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 15, 1963, which granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint, pursuant to rule 112 of the former Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, a reading of the whole newspaper article in question discloses that it does not, constitute libel per se as a matter of law. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider the validity of the defense of “fair comment.” Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 514, 261 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-tablet-publishing-co-nyappdiv-1965.