Miss American Petite, Inc. v. Fox Broadcasting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miss American Petite, Inc. v. Fox Broadcasting Co.

262 A.D.2d 33, 690 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6167

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

DecidedJune 3, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 33 (Miss American Petite, Inc. v. Fox Broadcasting Co.) 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

Miss American Petite, Inc. v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 262 A.D.2d 33, 690 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered March 26, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, deemed an appeal from the ensuing judgment, same court and Justice, entered April 8, 1998, dismissing the complaint, and, as so considered, the judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs in this defamation action produce a series of local beauty pageants, promoted nationwide, the winners of which participate in a well-publicized national pageant that has been considered for syndicated national television broadcast. We af[34]*34firm on a finding that plaintiffs have not shown that defendants acted in a grossly irresponsible manner (see, Gorman v Random House, 237 AD2d 564, 565, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 90 NY2d 921). Further, we note that some, if not all, of the statements pleaded in the complaint and emphasized on appeal were of a “loose, figurative or hyperbolic” sort and, as such, nonactionable as expressions of opinion (see, Polish Am. Immigration Relief Comm. v Relax, 189 AD2d 370, 373). We have not considered plaintiff’s arguments as to any statement from the broadcast not pleaded with specificity in the amended complaint (see, CPLR 3016 [a]). Were we to consider such arguments, we would find them unavailing. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered March 26, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, deemed an appeal from the ensuing judgment, same court and Justice, entered April 8, 1998, dismissing the complaint, and, as so considered, the judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs in this defamation action produce a series of local beauty pageants, promoted nationwide, the winners of which participate in a well-publicized national pageant that has been considered for syndicated national television broadcast. We af[34]*34firm on a finding that plaintiffs have not shown that defendants acted in a grossly irresponsible manner (see, Gorman v Random House, 237 AD2d 564, 565, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 90 NY2d 921). Further, we note that some, if not all, of the statements pleaded in the complaint and emphasized on appeal were of a “loose, figurative or hyperbolic” sort and, as such, nonactionable as expressions of opinion (see, Polish Am. Immigration Relief Comm. v Relax, 189 AD2d 370, 373). We have not considered plaintiff’s arguments as to any statement from the broadcast not pleaded with specificity in the amended complaint (see, CPLR 3016 [a]). Were we to consider such arguments, we would find them unavailing. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 33, 690 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miss-american-petite-inc-v-fox-broadcasting-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack