Stone v. Feller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stone v. Feller

101 A.D.2d 859, 476 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18544

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

DecidedMay 21, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.2d 859 (Stone v. Feller) 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

Stone v. Feller, 101 A.D.2d 859, 476 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for defamation, plaintiff appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh, J.), one dated April 22,1983 and one entered June 15,1983, which, respectively, (1) granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and (2) denied plaintiff’s motion for renewal. 11 Orders affirmed, with one bill of costs. 1 Defendant’s attorney’s affirmation together with the newspaper article were competent to establish plaintiff’s status as a public figure. f Plaintiff had the burden of proof to show actual malice by “convincing clarity” (Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 42 NY2d 369, 379, cert den 434 US 969). His affidavit is deficient as he merely makes conclusory allegations of actual malice, with no evidentiary facts to support his claim. Therefore, defendant’s motion was properly granted. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for defamation, plaintiff appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh, J.), one dated April 22,1983 and one entered June 15,1983, which, respectively, (1) granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and (2) denied plaintiff’s motion for renewal. 11 Orders affirmed, with one bill of costs. 1 Defendant’s attorney’s affirmation together with the newspaper article were competent to establish plaintiff’s status as a public figure. f Plaintiff had the burden of proof to show actual malice by “convincing clarity” (Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 42 NY2d 369, 379, cert den 434 US 969). His affidavit is deficient as he merely makes conclusory allegations of actual malice, with no evidentiary facts to support his claim. Therefore, defendant’s motion was properly granted. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 859, 476 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-feller-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack