Peeper v. Ledger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peeper v. Ledger

225 A.D.2d 331, 638 N.Y.2d 912, 638 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2087

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 331 (Peeper v. Ledger) 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

Peeper v. Ledger, 225 A.D.2d 331, 638 N.Y.2d 912, 638 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

This defamation action was properly dismissed as the complained-of statements are truthful, as demonstrated by the [332]*332documentary evidence • (see, Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 42 NY2d 369, cert denied 434 US 969). Moreover, the writings at issue here are not susceptible of a defamatory interpretation (see, Cohn v National Broadcasting Co., 50 NY2d 885, cert denied 449 US 1022; compare, Herlihy v Metropolitan Museum of Art, 214 AD2d 250). Finally, since there is no evidence that defendant Berkeley was responsible for the publication of the writings at issue, no defamation action can lie against him (see, Russo v Padovano, 84 AD2d 925). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

This defamation action was properly dismissed as the complained-of statements are truthful, as demonstrated by the [332]*332documentary evidence • (see, Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 42 NY2d 369, cert denied 434 US 969). Moreover, the writings at issue here are not susceptible of a defamatory interpretation (see, Cohn v National Broadcasting Co., 50 NY2d 885, cert denied 449 US 1022; compare, Herlihy v Metropolitan Museum of Art, 214 AD2d 250). Finally, since there is no evidence that defendant Berkeley was responsible for the publication of the writings at issue, no defamation action can lie against him (see, Russo v Padovano, 84 AD2d 925). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 331, 638 N.Y.2d 912, 638 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peeper-v-ledger-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack