Nemerover v. Held

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nemerover v. Held

54 A.D.2d 561, 387 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13882

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 561 (Nemerover v. Held) 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

Nemerover v. Held, 54 A.D.2d 561, 387 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a defamation action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 28, 1975, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. Order affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements jointly to defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs. The comments made by the defendant Held, "in open and public court”, were absolutely privileged (see Karelas v Baldwin, 237 App Div 265; see, also, Douglas v Collins, 243 App Div 546, affd 267 NY 557; Salomon v Mahoney, 271 App Div 478). Likewise, defendants were absolutely privileged in publishing the transcript of the September 20, 1974 proceedings (see Civil Rights Law, § 74). Plaintiffs reliance on section 235 of the Domestic Relations Law is misplaced since the published transcript merely sets forth a colloquy between the court and the attorney who succeeded plaintiff. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In a defamation action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 28, 1975, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. Order affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements jointly to defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs. The comments made by the defendant Held, "in open and public court”, were absolutely privileged (see Karelas v Baldwin, 237 App Div 265; see, also, Douglas v Collins, 243 App Div 546, affd 267 NY 557; Salomon v Mahoney, 271 App Div 478). Likewise, defendants were absolutely privileged in publishing the transcript of the September 20, 1974 proceedings (see Civil Rights Law, § 74). Plaintiffs reliance on section 235 of the Domestic Relations Law is misplaced since the published transcript merely sets forth a colloquy between the court and the attorney who succeeded plaintiff. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 561, 387 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nemerover-v-held-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack