Smith v. Catsimatidis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Catsimatidis

95 A.D.3d 737, 944 N.Y.S.2d 878

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

DecidedMay 29, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 737 (Smith v. Catsimatidis) 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

Smith v. Catsimatidis, 95 A.D.3d 737, 944 N.Y.S.2d 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered April 15, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court correctly determined that the allegedly defamatory statement contains nothing that would allow a reader to discern that it was “of and concerning” plaintiff (Giaimo v Literary Guild, 79 AD2d 917, 917 [1981]; Salvatore v Kumar, 45 AD3d 560, 563 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 703 [2008]; see generally Prince v Fox Tel. Stas., Inc., 93 AD3d 614, 614-615 [2012]). Indeed, the statement did not name plaintiff at all, and gave no reason for any reader to think that defendant was referring to him.

In view of the foregoing determination, we need not decide whether the statement is privileged. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered April 15, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court correctly determined that the allegedly defamatory statement contains nothing that would allow a reader to discern that it was “of and concerning” plaintiff (Giaimo v Literary Guild, 79 AD2d 917, 917 [1981]; Salvatore v Kumar, 45 AD3d 560, 563 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 703 [2008]; see generally Prince v Fox Tel. Stas., Inc., 93 AD3d 614, 614-615 [2012]). Indeed, the statement did not name plaintiff at all, and gave no reason for any reader to think that defendant was referring to him.

In view of the foregoing determination, we need not decide whether the statement is privileged. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 737, 944 N.Y.S.2d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-catsimatidis-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack