Moriondo v. Mandel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moriondo v. Mandel

262 A.D. 908, 28 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6445

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

DecidedJune 30, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D. 908 (Moriondo v. Mandel) 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

Moriondo v. Mandel, 262 A.D. 908, 28 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendants in an action for (1) false arrest and imprisonment, (2) malicious prosecution, (3) libel and (4) slander appeal from an order denying their motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint. Order reversed on the law, with ten "dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Plaintiff alleged that at the preliminary hearing the charge against him was reduced, and that he was held for trial in the Court of Special Sessions by the magistrate on the charge as reduced. This as matter of law demonstrated a prima facie cause for his arrest and prosecution (Graham, v. Buffalo General Laundries Corp., 261 N. Y. 165, 166, 167; Adams v. Schwartz137 App. Div. 230, 233, 234), which plaintiff failed to overcome by pleaded allegations that the defendants had committed fraud or perjury, or had withheld material evidence in their possession. (Agar v. Kelsey, 253 App. Div. 726, 727; Morgan v. New York Central R. R. Co., 256 id. 177, 179-181; Green v. General Cigar Co., Inc., 238 id. 638.) Snead v. Bonnoil (166 N. Y. 325, 328, 329), read in the light of its peculiar facts, has no application here. The third and fourth causes of action, for libel and slander, fall with the first two causes of action. Furthermore, the matter on which the last two causes of action were predicated was privileged. (People ex rel. Bensky v. Warden of City Prison, 258 N. Y. 55, 59, 60.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Defendants in an action for (1) false arrest and imprisonment, (2) malicious prosecution, (3) libel and (4) slander appeal from an order denying their motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint. Order reversed on the law, with ten "dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Plaintiff alleged that at the preliminary hearing the charge against him was reduced, and that he was held for trial in the Court of Special Sessions by the magistrate on the charge as reduced. This as matter of law demonstrated a prima facie cause for his arrest and prosecution (Graham, v. Buffalo General Laundries Corp., 261 N. Y. 165, 166, 167; Adams v. Schwartz137 App. Div. 230, 233, 234), which plaintiff failed to overcome by pleaded allegations that the defendants had committed fraud or perjury, or had withheld material evidence in their possession. (Agar v. Kelsey, 253 App. Div. 726, 727; Morgan v. New York Central R. R. Co., 256 id. 177, 179-181; Green v. General Cigar Co., Inc., 238 id. 638.) Snead v. Bonnoil (166 N. Y. 325, 328, 329), read in the light of its peculiar facts, has no application here. The third and fourth causes of action, for libel and slander, fall with the first two causes of action. Furthermore, the matter on which the last two causes of action were predicated was privileged. (People ex rel. Bensky v. Warden of City Prison, 258 N. Y. 55, 59, 60.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 908, 28 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moriondo-v-mandel-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack