State of Israel v. St. Martin's Press, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State of Israel v. St. Martin's Press, Inc.

166 A.D.2d 251, 560 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11858

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 11, 1990·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Motion by defendant St. Martin’s Press Inc. granted and the temporary restraining order vacated pursuant to CPLR 5518, without costs. This court’s order of September 12, 1990, which sealed the motion papers, is vacated.

On the papers submitted, plaintiff has failed to substantiate the requisite element for a temporary restraining order, that of irreparable injury. Its claim that the safety of Israeli intelligence agents is endangered by defendants’ further acts of publication and dissemination of the book, "By Way of Deception” has not been sufficiently supported. Plaintiff has failed to overcome the heavy presumption against a prior restraint on publication (New York Times Co. v United States, 403 US 713). We also note that in view of the distribution of the book to approximately 1,500 wholesalers and to book reviewers of major media outlets, any grant of injunctive relief in this case would be ineffective (Nebraska Press Assn. v Stuart, 427 US 539, 565-566). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ. [165 AD2d 712.]

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

Motion by defendant St. Martin’s Press Inc. granted and the temporary restraining order vacated pursuant to CPLR 5518, without costs. This court’s order of September 12, 1990, which sealed the motion papers, is vacated.

On the papers submitted, plaintiff has failed to substantiate the requisite element for a temporary restraining order, that of irreparable injury. Its claim that the safety of Israeli intelligence agents is endangered by defendants’ further acts of publication and dissemination of the book, "By Way of Deception” has not been sufficiently supported. Plaintiff has failed to overcome the heavy presumption against a prior restraint on publication (New York Times Co. v United States, 403 US 713). We also note that in view of the distribution of the book to approximately 1,500 wholesalers and to book reviewers of major media outlets, any grant of injunctive relief in this case would be ineffective (Nebraska Press Assn. v Stuart, 427 US 539, 565-566). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ. [165 AD2d 712.]

State of Israel v. St. Martin's Press, Inc., 166 A.D.2d 251, 560 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

166 A.D.2d 251 (State of Israel v. St. Martin's Press, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related