Roland v. Slesinger

New York Supreme Court

Roland v. Slesinger

16 Misc. 2d 1087, 185 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4247

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 25, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 Misc. 2d 1087 (Roland v. Slesinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roland v. Slesinger, 16 Misc. 2d 1087, 185 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4247 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Aron Steuer, J.

Motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The first and third causes of action are in slander. They purport to set out the words spoken by putting them in quotation marks but qualify the alleged quotations by saying the words are “ substantially as follows ”. A complaint in slander must set out the exact words (Al Raschid v. News Syndicate Co., 265 N. Y. 1). An approximation is not sufficient (Cooke v. Dodge, 168 Misc. 561).

The second cause of action is difficult to classify. It alleges that at unusual hours of the day and night plaintiff’s telephone would ring and when plaintiff picked up the receiver no one would be on the wire. At other times plaintiff would hear insulting remarks. It is alleged that these calls were made by defendant or at her instance. Insult that is not defamatory is not actionable. As for the calls which were obviously for the purpose of annoyance, for the purposes of this motion it must be assumed that, these were, as alleged, made by or at the instance of defendant. But mere annoying conduct does not give rise to a cause of action. It is different where it is sufficiently aggravated to cause damage but no damage is alleged. Or if it amounts to a nuisance it may he enjoined. This is not sought.

Motion is granted with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint on or before March 6, 1959.

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

Aron Steuer, J.

Motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The first and third causes of action are in slander. They purport to set out the words spoken by putting them in quotation marks but qualify the alleged quotations by saying the words are “ substantially as follows ”. A complaint in slander must set out the exact words (Al Raschid v. News Syndicate Co., 265 N. Y. 1). An approximation is not sufficient (Cooke v. Dodge, 168 Misc. 561).

The second cause of action is difficult to classify. It alleges that at unusual hours of the day and night plaintiff’s telephone would ring and when plaintiff picked up the receiver no one would be on the wire. At other times plaintiff would hear insulting remarks. It is alleged that these calls were made by defendant or at her instance. Insult that is not defamatory is not actionable. As for the calls which were obviously for the purpose of annoyance, for the purposes of this motion it must be assumed that, these were, as alleged, made by or at the instance of defendant. But mere annoying conduct does not give rise to a cause of action. It is different where it is sufficiently aggravated to cause damage but no damage is alleged. Or if it amounts to a nuisance it may he enjoined. This is not sought.

Motion is granted with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint on or before March 6, 1959.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Misc. 2d 1087, 185 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roland-v-slesinger-nysupct-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack