Raeder v. New York Times

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raeder v. New York Times

4 A.D.2d 773, 165 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4836

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 773 (Raeder v. New York Times) 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

Raeder v. New York Times, 4 A.D.2d 773, 165 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

The amended complaint alleges that plaintiff is the owner of a which, by the disparaging and untruthful statements of defendants, was destroyed in that plaintiff thereby lost her source of supply of actors for the show and lost the opportunity to negotiate with prospective sponsors of the show. Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint as insufficient, or for alternative relief. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss granted. The amended complaint fails to allege unequivocally any causal connection between the defendants’ statements and plaintiff’s losses. Inasmuch as the amended complaint is the second complaint in the action, and in view of the provisions of section 23 of the Civil Practice Act, leave to replead is not granted. If the amended complaint were not hereby dismissed for the reason stated, it would be dismissed for the reason that it fails to make the clarifications set forth in a prior order of the Special Term as modified by this court. (Raeder v. New York Times, 1 A D 2d 1017.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

The amended complaint alleges that plaintiff is the owner of a which, by the disparaging and untruthful statements of defendants, was destroyed in that plaintiff thereby lost her source of supply of actors for the show and lost the opportunity to negotiate with prospective sponsors of the show. Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint as insufficient, or for alternative relief. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss granted. The amended complaint fails to allege unequivocally any causal connection between the defendants’ statements and plaintiff’s losses. Inasmuch as the amended complaint is the second complaint in the action, and in view of the provisions of section 23 of the Civil Practice Act, leave to replead is not granted. If the amended complaint were not hereby dismissed for the reason stated, it would be dismissed for the reason that it fails to make the clarifications set forth in a prior order of the Special Term as modified by this court. (Raeder v. New York Times, 1 A D 2d 1017.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 773, 165 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raeder-v-new-york-times-nyappdiv-1957.