November v. Time, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

November v. Time, Inc.

17 A.D.2d 619, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8533

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 619 (November v. Time, Inc.) 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

November v. Time, Inc., 17 A.D.2d 619, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered June 8,1961 denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice unanimously reversed on the law and the complaint dismissed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants. The allegedly libelous matter, read in the context of the entire article, cannot be fairly construed as imputing incompetency or unethical conduct by plaintiff, an attorney, in representing his client. The consequences, unhappy though they may have been, of the legal advice given by plaintiff, as described in the article, were not such as would permit an inference that plaintiff carelessly or deliberately misled the client. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Bergan, JJ.

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

Order entered June 8,1961 denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice unanimously reversed on the law and the complaint dismissed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants. The allegedly libelous matter, read in the context of the entire article, cannot be fairly construed as imputing incompetency or unethical conduct by plaintiff, an attorney, in representing his client. The consequences, unhappy though they may have been, of the legal advice given by plaintiff, as described in the article, were not such as would permit an inference that plaintiff carelessly or deliberately misled the client. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 619, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/november-v-time-inc-nyappdiv-1962.