Mellen v. Athens Hotel Co.

153 A.D. 891
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1912·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

The following is the opinion of Bischoff, J.:

Bischoee, J.:

There can be no question that the matter contained in the letter set forth in the complaint injuriously affected the plaintiff in his profession. While the surrounding circumstances, as alleged, would indicate reason for a ruling upon the trial that the letter was a privileged communication, because referring to a matter of business interest common to the writer and the addressee, the complaint is not rendered thereby insufficient in law. If the writing were ostensibly privileged, a malicious intent upon the part of the writer would destroy the privilege, but the plaintiff would have the burden of proving malice upon the trial. (Odgers Lib. & Sland. [4th ed.] 236; Hemmens v. Nelson, 138 N. Y. 517, 529.) An inference of malicious intent may arise from the writer’s inclusion of expressions beyond such as are necessary for the purpose of the privileged communication, but, whatever the proof available, the plaintiff need not allege his evidence. Here the complaint sets forth the fact that the matter was published maliciously, and upon proof within the allegation of fact a case for the recovery of damages would be presented. Demurrer overruled, with costs, with leave to defendant to plead over on payment of costs within twenty days.

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

Mellen v. Athens Hotel Co., 153 A.D. 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

153 A.D. 891 (Mellen v. Athens Hotel Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Martinez v. State of New York
215 A.D.3d 815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Sokol v. Leader
74 A.D.3d 1180 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Arts4All, Ltd. v. Hancock
5 A.D.3d 106 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Herlihy v. Metropolitan Museum of Art
214 A.D.2d 250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Schulman v. Anderson Russell Kill & Olick, P. C.
117 Misc. 2d 162 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)
Cabin v. Community Newspapers, Inc.
50 Misc. 2d 574 (New York Supreme Court, 1966)
National Variety Artists, Inc. v. Mosconi
169 Misc. 982 (New York Supreme Court, 1939)
Mayer v. Chamberlain
178 A.D. 326 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)