Saint David's School v. Hume

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saint David's School v. Hume

101 A.D.3d 582, 957 N.Y.2d 52

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 582 (Saint David's School v. Hume) 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

Saint David's School v. Hume, 101 A.D.3d 582, 957 N.Y.2d 52 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[583]*583Defendant, a long-standing rent-stabilized tenant in a residential building owned by plaintiff, a private elementary school, became upset when plaintiff commenced a plan to eliminate certain residential apartments so as to expand its classroom space into the building. Defendant alleged that, inter alia, noise, construction debris and the threat of eviction had adversely affected the health of elderly tenants. To protest plaintiffs actions, defendant alone stood outside in front of the school, on several dates, wearing placards that were draped over his body, stating, “DONT [sic] KILL FOR CLASSROOMS,” and “RESPONSIBLE PARENTS DON’T IGNORE ABUSE/PROTECT OUR CHILDREN AND DISABLED ELDERLY.”

Defendant’s statements, viewed by a reasonable reader, in light of the circumstances, are vague exaggerations, if not pure opinion. Accordingly, they constitute nonactionable opinion (see e.g. Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 NY2d 283, 294-295 [1986]; see generally Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146 [1993]). Plaintiff’s argument that the statements are actionable as “mixed opinion” is unavailing. The challenged statements do not suggest the existence of undisclosed facts, and a reasonable reader, under the circumstances, would not infer that defendant alone possessed such facts (see Gross, 82 NY2d at 153-154). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

[583]*583Defendant, a long-standing rent-stabilized tenant in a residential building owned by plaintiff, a private elementary school, became upset when plaintiff commenced a plan to eliminate certain residential apartments so as to expand its classroom space into the building. Defendant alleged that, inter alia, noise, construction debris and the threat of eviction had adversely affected the health of elderly tenants. To protest plaintiffs actions, defendant alone stood outside in front of the school, on several dates, wearing placards that were draped over his body, stating, “DONT [sic] KILL FOR CLASSROOMS,” and “RESPONSIBLE PARENTS DON’T IGNORE ABUSE/PROTECT OUR CHILDREN AND DISABLED ELDERLY.”

Defendant’s statements, viewed by a reasonable reader, in light of the circumstances, are vague exaggerations, if not pure opinion. Accordingly, they constitute nonactionable opinion (see e.g. Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 NY2d 283, 294-295 [1986]; see generally Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146 [1993]). Plaintiff’s argument that the statements are actionable as “mixed opinion” is unavailing. The challenged statements do not suggest the existence of undisclosed facts, and a reasonable reader, under the circumstances, would not infer that defendant alone possessed such facts (see Gross, 82 NY2d at 153-154). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 582, 957 N.Y.2d 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saint-davids-school-v-hume-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack