Segal v. Barnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Segal v. Barnett

24 A.D.2d 809, 263 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3118

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 809 (Segal v. Barnett) 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

Segal v. Barnett, 24 A.D.2d 809, 263 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action for slander the plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon an order dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case. The complaint alleged that on October 4, 1961, defendant referred to the plaintiff, in the presence of two persons, as a prostitute implying further that she had frequent sexual relations with numerous men. We agree with appellant that there is sufficient evidence in the record to raise a question of fact requiring jury determination. In reviewing a judgment of nonsuit the appellant must be afforded “ the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from [the] facts proved ” (Bowers v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 282 N. Y. 442, 444-415). The jury could have found that the defendant’s response on the telephone constituted an admission of prior publication. Order and judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

In this action for slander the plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon an order dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case. The complaint alleged that on October 4, 1961, defendant referred to the plaintiff, in the presence of two persons, as a prostitute implying further that she had frequent sexual relations with numerous men. We agree with appellant that there is sufficient evidence in the record to raise a question of fact requiring jury determination. In reviewing a judgment of nonsuit the appellant must be afforded “ the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from [the] facts proved ” (Bowers v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 282 N. Y. 442, 444-415). The jury could have found that the defendant’s response on the telephone constituted an admission of prior publication. Order and judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 809, 263 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/segal-v-barnett-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack