McEvaddy v. City University of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McEvaddy v. City University of New York

220 A.D.2d 319, 633 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10391

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1995

Docket(Claim No. 78836.)

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 319 (McEvaddy v. City University of New York) 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

McEvaddy v. City University of New York, 220 A.D.2d 319, 633 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Court of Claims (Albert Blinder, J.), entered August 26, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim for defamation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The student newspaper that printed the allegedly libelous article is not an "agent” of defendant City University and therefore the claim for defamation was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Education Law § 6224 [4]). The presence of a faculty advisor to the paper, whose advice was nonbinding, and the financing of the paper through student activity fees dispensed by defendant, do not demonstrate such editorial control or influence over the paper by defendant as to suggest an agency relationship (see, Mazart v State of New York, 109 Misc 2d 1092; cf., Matter of Panarella v Birenbaum, 32 NY2d 108). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Court of Claims (Albert Blinder, J.), entered August 26, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim for defamation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The student newspaper that printed the allegedly libelous article is not an "agent” of defendant City University and therefore the claim for defamation was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Education Law § 6224 [4]). The presence of a faculty advisor to the paper, whose advice was nonbinding, and the financing of the paper through student activity fees dispensed by defendant, do not demonstrate such editorial control or influence over the paper by defendant as to suggest an agency relationship (see, Mazart v State of New York, 109 Misc 2d 1092; cf., Matter of Panarella v Birenbaum, 32 NY2d 108). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 319, 633 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcevaddy-v-city-university-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack