Loewinthan v. Beth David Hospital
48 N.E.2d 319, 290 N.Y. 188, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1121
Opinion
The complaint should not have been dismissed as against these defendants-respondents. Their communications were protected by a qualified privilege but plaintiff’s proof made out a prima facie case of malice. (Ashcroft v. Hammond, 197 N. Y. 488.) The question was for the jury.
The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted with costs to abide the event.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.
Judgments reversed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Loewinthan v. Beth David Hospital, 48 N.E.2d 319, 290 N.Y. 188, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1121 (N.Y. 1943).
48 N.E.2d 319 (Loewinthan v. Beth David Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Williams v. Tritschler
184 A.D.2d 690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Bakhshandeh v. American Cyanamid Company
211 F. Supp. 803 (S.D. New York, 1962)
Gasperini v. Manginelli
196 Misc. 547 (New York Supreme Court, 1949)
Loewinthan v. Le Vine
87 N.E.2d 303 (New York Court of Appeals, 1949)
Loewinthan v. Le Vine
270 A.D. 512 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1946)
Loewinthan v. Beth David Hospital, Loventhal
50 N.E.2d 241 (New York Court of Appeals, 1943)