Lombardo v. Stoke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lombardo v. Stoke

24 A.D.2d 574, 262 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3705

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 574 (Lombardo v. Stoke) 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

Lombardo v. Stoke, 24 A.D.2d 574, 262 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for a libel, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens Countjr, entered January 12, 1965, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion granted; and complaint dismissed, without costs. Based upon the facts alleged in the pleadings and affidavits, we are of the opinion that the defendants are protected by an absolute privilege in the issuance of the statement of October 6, 1960 here involved (Sheridan v. Crisona, 14 N Y 2d 108; Smith v. Helbraun, 21 A D 2d 830). (For related appeals, see Matter of Board of Higher Educ. of City of N. Y., 26 Misc 2d 989, mod. 16 A D 2d 443, mod. 14 N Y 2d 138.) Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for a libel, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens Countjr, entered January 12, 1965, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion granted; and complaint dismissed, without costs. Based upon the facts alleged in the pleadings and affidavits, we are of the opinion that the defendants are protected by an absolute privilege in the issuance of the statement of October 6, 1960 here involved (Sheridan v. Crisona, 14 N Y 2d 108; Smith v. Helbraun, 21 A D 2d 830). (For related appeals, see Matter of Board of Higher Educ. of City of N. Y., 26 Misc 2d 989, mod. 16 A D 2d 443, mod. 14 N Y 2d 138.) Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 574, 262 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lombardo-v-stoke-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack