Russo v. Advance Publications, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russo v. Advance Publications, Inc.

33 A.D.2d 1025, 307 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5623

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 1025 (Russo v. Advance Publications, Inc.) 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

Russo v. Advance Publications, Inc., 33 A.D.2d 1025, 307 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 23, 1969, as denied the portion of appellants’ motion which was to compel plaintiff to separately state and number the causes of action in the complaint (CPLR 3014). Upon the appeal this court has also reviewed the further order of the Special Term, dated July 1, 1969, which resettled the order of June 23, 1969 (CPLR 5517, subd. ¡[b]). Orders reversed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements, on the law, and motion for the above-mentioned relief granted. Plaintiff is directed to serve an amended complaint, accordingly, within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, with notice of entry. The action is basically one for libel, despite the attempt to make it one for prima facie tort. A libel action may not be pleaded as prima facie tort or conspiracy (Morrison v. National Broadcasting Co., 19 N Y 2d 453). Each publication is the basis for a separate cause of action which should be separately stated and numbered (Woodhouse v. New York Evening Post, 201 App. Div. 9). Motions lie under CPLR 3014; and orders on such motions are appealable (Consolidated Airborne Systems v. Silverman, 23 A D 2d 695). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Maxtuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 23, 1969, as denied the portion of appellants’ motion which was to compel plaintiff to separately state and number the causes of action in the complaint (CPLR 3014). Upon the appeal this court has also reviewed the further order of the Special Term, dated July 1, 1969, which resettled the order of June 23, 1969 (CPLR 5517, subd. ¡[b]). Orders reversed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements, on the law, and motion for the above-mentioned relief granted. Plaintiff is directed to serve an amended complaint, accordingly, within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, with notice of entry. The action is basically one for libel, despite the attempt to make it one for prima facie tort. A libel action may not be pleaded as prima facie tort or conspiracy (Morrison v. National Broadcasting Co., 19 N Y 2d 453). Each publication is the basis for a separate cause of action which should be separately stated and numbered (Woodhouse v. New York Evening Post, 201 App. Div. 9). Motions lie under CPLR 3014; and orders on such motions are appealable (Consolidated Airborne Systems v. Silverman, 23 A D 2d 695). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Maxtuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 1025, 307 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-advance-publications-inc-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack