Posner v. New York Law Publishing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Posner v. New York Law Publishing Co.

228 A.D.2d 318, 644 N.Y.2d 227, 644 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7319

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 20, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The motion court correctly held that the article published in defendant newspaper was a substantially accurate report of the decision it published on the case of Matter of Posner (Central Synagogue) (NYLJ, Oct. 28, 1993, at 28, col 6, affd 202 AD2d 284, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 953), and therefore privileged under Civil Rights Law § 74 (Holy Spirit Assn. v New York Times Co., 49 NY2d 63, 67). The minor inaccuracies in the article cited by plaintiff do not make it otherwise (see, supra, at 68; Gurda v Orange County Pubis. Div., 56 NY2d 705, revg on opn below 81 AD2d 120, 133; Ford v Levinson, 90 AD2d 464). Nor was the cartoon that accompanied the article anything other than commentary, albeit hyperbolic, on a subject of public controversy, and, as such, constitutionally protected opinion (see, DRT Constr. Co. v Lenkei, 176 AD2d 1229, 1230, lv denied 79 NY2d 753; Velez v VV Publ. Corp., 135 AD2d 47, 52, lv denied 72 NY2d 808). The complaint was utterly without merit, and costs were properly assessed by the motion court. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

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

The motion court correctly held that the article published in defendant newspaper was a substantially accurate report of the decision it published on the case of Matter of Posner (Central Synagogue) (NYLJ, Oct. 28, 1993, at 28, col 6, affd 202 AD2d 284, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 953), and therefore privileged under Civil Rights Law § 74 (Holy Spirit Assn. v New York Times Co., 49 NY2d 63, 67). The minor inaccuracies in the article cited by plaintiff do not make it otherwise (see, supra, at 68; Gurda v Orange County Pubis. Div., 56 NY2d 705, revg on opn below 81 AD2d 120, 133; Ford v Levinson, 90 AD2d 464). Nor was the cartoon that accompanied the article anything other than commentary, albeit hyperbolic, on a subject of public controversy, and, as such, constitutionally protected opinion (see, DRT Constr. Co. v Lenkei, 176 AD2d 1229, 1230, lv denied 79 NY2d 753; Velez v VV Publ. Corp., 135 AD2d 47, 52, lv denied 72 NY2d 808). The complaint was utterly without merit, and costs were properly assessed by the motion court. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Posner v. New York Law Publishing Co., 228 A.D.2d 318, 644 N.Y.2d 227, 644 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

228 A.D.2d 318 (Posner v. New York Law Publishing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related