Smith v. Di Cara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Di Cara

42 A.D.2d 791, 346 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3718

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 30, 1973·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action by a Federal employee against a Veterans’ Administration physician to recover damages for an alleged libel and alleged breach of the physician’s duty by releasing the alleged defamatory matter without plaintiff’s permission, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 22, 1972, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff’s superior in the Post Office in which he was employed had directed plaintiff to submit to the physical examination which was made by defendant and the latter was required to make a written report of the examination. Defendant gave the report to the Acting Chief of Outpatient Services of the Veterans’ Administration Hospital in which defendant was employed. The alleged defamatory matter was in the report. In our opinion, defendant’s publication of the matter in question was absolutely privileged (Barr v. Matteo, 360 U. S. 564). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a Federal employee against a Veterans’ Administration physician to recover damages for an alleged libel and alleged breach of the physician’s duty by releasing the alleged defamatory matter without plaintiff’s permission, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 22, 1972, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff’s superior in the Post Office in which he was employed had directed plaintiff to submit to the physical examination which was made by defendant and the latter was required to make a written report of the examination. Defendant gave the report to the Acting Chief of Outpatient Services of the Veterans’ Administration Hospital in which defendant was employed. The alleged defamatory matter was in the report. In our opinion, defendant’s publication of the matter in question was absolutely privileged (Barr v. Matteo, 360 U. S. 564). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Smith v. Di Cara, 42 A.D.2d 791, 346 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

42 A.D.2d 791 (Smith v. Di Cara) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related