Spring Joint Venture v. Fairchild Publications, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spring Joint Venture v. Fairchild Publications, Inc.

33 A.D.2d 515, 303 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3218

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 515 (Spring Joint Venture v. Fairchild Publications, Inc.) 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

Spring Joint Venture v. Fairchild Publications, Inc., 33 A.D.2d 515, 303 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered February 28, 1969, denying motion to dismiss the complaint, reversed oh the law and the complaint dismissed, with $50' costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant with leave to both plaintiffs, however, to apply to Special Term to serve an amended complaint on proper papers with reference to the first cause of action only. (See Andlou Prop. v. Grayck, 24 A D 2d 716.) The complaint fails to state a cause of action in libel per se and does not sufficiently allege special damage. (See Drug Research Corp. v. Curtis Pub. Co., 7 N Y 2d 435.) The second cause of action is dismissed. Plaintiffs may not fortify the alleged libel underlying the first cause of action by reliance upon a prior unrelated alleged libel. Concur — 'Stevens, P. J., Tilzer, Markewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered February 28, 1969, denying motion to dismiss the complaint, reversed oh the law and the complaint dismissed, with $50' costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant with leave to both plaintiffs, however, to apply to Special Term to serve an amended complaint on proper papers with reference to the first cause of action only. (See Andlou Prop. v. Grayck, 24 A D 2d 716.) The complaint fails to state a cause of action in libel per se and does not sufficiently allege special damage. (See Drug Research Corp. v. Curtis Pub. Co., 7 N Y 2d 435.) The second cause of action is dismissed. Plaintiffs may not fortify the alleged libel underlying the first cause of action by reliance upon a prior unrelated alleged libel. Concur — 'Stevens, P. J., Tilzer, Markewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 515, 303 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spring-joint-venture-v-fairchild-publications-inc-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack