Nadrowski v. Wazeter

29 A.D.2d 741, 286 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4744
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 1, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 741 (Nadrowski v. Wazeter) 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
Nadrowski v. Wazeter, 29 A.D.2d 741, 286 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

Order, entered on July 5, 1967, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion granted, with leave, however, to plaintiff to apply at Special Term for permission to serve an amended complaint within 20 days after service of a copy of the order herein with notice of entry (Cushman é Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 23 A D 2d 827, 25 A D 2d 133). In this action for slander, the complaint alleges that, at an election meeting of the General Pulasky Memorial Committee, Inc., to which both parties belong, the defendant, an attorney, following his election as president thereof, said of plaintiff, a physician, “Dr. Nadrowski is a part of a communist plot to remove me from office”. Not all words “spoken to the disparagement of a professional man will ipso> facto be actionable per se. Words to be actionable on this ground must touch the plaintiff in his profession or trade”. (Gurtler v. Union Parts Mfg. Go., 285 App. Div. 643, 646, affd. 1 N Y 2d 5). Words which merely impute misconduct unconnected with plaintiff’s profession, are not actionable without proof of special damages, which are not pleaded in the present complaint. (Shakum v. Sadinoff, 272 App. Div. 721.) Concur — -Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, McGivem and Rabin, JJ.

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

Related

Weinstock v. Goldstein
190 A.D.2d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Held v. Pokorny
583 F. Supp. 1038 (S.D. New York, 1984)
Matherson v. Marchello
100 A.D.2d 233 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Silver v. Mohasco Corp.
94 A.D.2d 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 A.D.2d 741, 286 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nadrowski-v-wazeter-nyappdiv-1968.