Margolis v. Faber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Margolis v. Faber

212 A.D.2d 364, 622 N.Y.S.2d 513

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 364 (Margolis v. Faber) 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

Margolis v. Faber, 212 A.D.2d 364, 622 N.Y.S.2d 513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered February 25, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In an action for slander in which plaintiff alleges that defendant, his former employer, falsely accused him of stealing merchandise, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied, there being issues of fact pertaining to defendant’s assertion of the common interest privilege, that is whether defendant had "a legal or moral duty to respond to inquiries”, if any, that were made concerning the theft by the persons to whom defendant uttered the accusation (Norwood v City of New York, 203 AD2d 147, 149, appeal dismissed 84 NY2d 849). Also, whether defendant acted with actual malice, is an issue not amenable to summary judgment treatment (O’Neil v Peekskill Faculty Assn., 120 AD2d 36, 43, lv dismissed 69 NY2d 984), especially where, as here, plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to conduct disclosure (Bigman v Dime Sav. Bank, 144 AD2d 318, 320). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered February 25, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In an action for slander in which plaintiff alleges that defendant, his former employer, falsely accused him of stealing merchandise, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied, there being issues of fact pertaining to defendant’s assertion of the common interest privilege, that is whether defendant had "a legal or moral duty to respond to inquiries”, if any, that were made concerning the theft by the persons to whom defendant uttered the accusation (Norwood v City of New York, 203 AD2d 147, 149, appeal dismissed 84 NY2d 849). Also, whether defendant acted with actual malice, is an issue not amenable to summary judgment treatment (O’Neil v Peekskill Faculty Assn., 120 AD2d 36, 43, lv dismissed 69 NY2d 984), especially where, as here, plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to conduct disclosure (Bigman v Dime Sav. Bank, 144 AD2d 318, 320). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 364, 622 N.Y.S.2d 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margolis-v-faber-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack