Skinner v. Government Employees Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skinner v. Government Employees Insurance

196 A.D.2d 494, 600 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7714

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

DecidedAugust 2, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 196 A.D.2d 494 (Skinner v. Government Employees Insurance) 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

Skinner v. Government Employees Insurance, 196 A.D.2d 494, 600 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover sums due under an insurance policy and to recover damages for defamation, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated May 31, 1991, which denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action is granted.

Since the plaintiff failed to set forth the particular words complained of in his complaint, his fourth cause of action for defamation should have been dismissed (see, CPLR 3016 [a]; Erlitz v Segal, Liling & Erlitz, 142 AD2d 710; Belvision Inc. v M&G Elees., 134 AD2d 313; Lexow & Jenkins v Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 122 AD2d 25). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover sums due under an insurance policy and to recover damages for defamation, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated May 31, 1991, which denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action is granted.

Since the plaintiff failed to set forth the particular words complained of in his complaint, his fourth cause of action for defamation should have been dismissed (see, CPLR 3016 [a]; Erlitz v Segal, Liling & Erlitz, 142 AD2d 710; Belvision Inc. v M&G Elees., 134 AD2d 313; Lexow & Jenkins v Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 122 AD2d 25). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 494, 600 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-v-government-employees-insurance-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack