Ratisher v. Chernick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ratisher v. Chernick

10 A.D.2d 889, 201 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10409

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

DecidedApril 27, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 889 (Ratisher v. Chernick) 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

Ratisher v. Chernick, 10 A.D.2d 889, 201 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for libel, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 30, 1959, denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Assuming that upon the trial the surrounding circumstances would indicate reason for a ruling that the letter of February 4, 1959 was a privileged communication, the affidavits show that there is a triable issue of fact as to actual malice. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for libel, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 30, 1959, denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Assuming that upon the trial the surrounding circumstances would indicate reason for a ruling that the letter of February 4, 1959 was a privileged communication, the affidavits show that there is a triable issue of fact as to actual malice. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 889, 201 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ratisher-v-chernick-nyappdiv-1960.