Morsette v. Final Call

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morsette v. Final Call

278 A.D.2d 81, 718 N.Y.S.2d 29, 29 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1191, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13088

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 81 (Morsette v. Final Call) 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

Morsette v. Final Call, 278 A.D.2d 81, 718 N.Y.S.2d 29, 29 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1191, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13088 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered April 17, 2000, which, in an action for libel, inter [82]*82alia, denied defendant newspaper’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On the front page and two other pages of its newspaper, defendant published photographs of plaintiff to illustrate an article about the negative consequences to society of mothers in prison. The pictures were taken from defendant’s archives, two of them being altered by superimposing a drawing that made it appear as if plaintiff was wearing a prison uniform with an identification number. The article did not identify plaintiff or expressly accuse her of a criminal act. In an edition published shortly thereafter, defendant “clarified” that the photographs were for illustration purposes only and were not intended to convey the impression that plaintiff was either a mother or incarcerated, and that defendant regretted any confusion caused thereby. Plaintiff alleges that the pictures implied that she was a criminal, and, as a result, she suffered humiliation and emotional distress. No special damages are pleaded. Whether the pictures in question fairly implied that plaintiff was a criminal, and were therefore defamatory, is a question of fact (see, Colpttis v Fine, 42 AD2d 551). Should it be determined that the pictures did imply criminality, they would constitute libel per se, making proof of special damages unnecessary (see, Ideal Publ. Corp. v Creative Features, 59 AD2d 862; Blumenstein v Chase, 100 AD2d 243, 246). An issue of fact also exists as to whether defendant “acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” (Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 NY2d 196, 199; cf, Alicea v Ogden Newspapers, 115 AD2d 233, affd 67 NY2d 862). We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered April 17, 2000, which, in an action for libel, inter [82]*82alia, denied defendant newspaper’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On the front page and two other pages of its newspaper, defendant published photographs of plaintiff to illustrate an article about the negative consequences to society of mothers in prison. The pictures were taken from defendant’s archives, two of them being altered by superimposing a drawing that made it appear as if plaintiff was wearing a prison uniform with an identification number. The article did not identify plaintiff or expressly accuse her of a criminal act. In an edition published shortly thereafter, defendant “clarified” that the photographs were for illustration purposes only and were not intended to convey the impression that plaintiff was either a mother or incarcerated, and that defendant regretted any confusion caused thereby. Plaintiff alleges that the pictures implied that she was a criminal, and, as a result, she suffered humiliation and emotional distress. No special damages are pleaded. Whether the pictures in question fairly implied that plaintiff was a criminal, and were therefore defamatory, is a question of fact (see, Colpttis v Fine, 42 AD2d 551). Should it be determined that the pictures did imply criminality, they would constitute libel per se, making proof of special damages unnecessary (see, Ideal Publ. Corp. v Creative Features, 59 AD2d 862; Blumenstein v Chase, 100 AD2d 243, 246). An issue of fact also exists as to whether defendant “acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” (Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 NY2d 196, 199; cf, Alicea v Ogden Newspapers, 115 AD2d 233, affd 67 NY2d 862). We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 81, 718 N.Y.S.2d 29, 29 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1191, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morsette-v-final-call-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack