Neilson v. Delgado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Neilson v. Delgado

292 A.D.2d 200, 738 N.Y.S.2d 216, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2319

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 200 (Neilson v. Delgado) 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

Neilson v. Delgado, 292 A.D.2d 200, 738 N.Y.S.2d 216, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J., and a jury), entered May 26, 2000, awarding plaintiff damages in the amounts of $10,000 for loss of reputation and $15,000 for lost earnings, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this defamation action by an employee against his supervisor, the jury’s verdict, finding that defendant’s qualified privilege was overcome by malice and reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement (see, Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 437-438; Park Knoll Assoc. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 208-209), was amply supported by the record. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and its resolution of the conflicts in evidence. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J., and a jury), entered May 26, 2000, awarding plaintiff damages in the amounts of $10,000 for loss of reputation and $15,000 for lost earnings, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this defamation action by an employee against his supervisor, the jury’s verdict, finding that defendant’s qualified privilege was overcome by malice and reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement (see, Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 437-438; Park Knoll Assoc. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 208-209), was amply supported by the record. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and its resolution of the conflicts in evidence. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 200, 738 N.Y.S.2d 216, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neilson-v-delgado-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack