Suckenik v. Levitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Suckenik v. Levitt

177 A.D.2d 416, 576 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14825

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 416 (Suckenik v. Levitt) 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

Suckenik v. Levitt, 177 A.D.2d 416, 576 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered June 19, 1990, which, insofar as appealed from, found, after inquest without a jury, that plaintiff should be awarded damages in the amount of one cent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The within libel action arose from a letter, dated October 31, 1988, which was written by defendant to a client of plaintiff, an attorney. Since the court’s granting of summary judgment to plaintiff on default was not contested, the only question before us is whether the court properly set damages in the amount of one cent.

We find that the mere fact that plaintiff’s client, the recipient of the letter, later terminated her relationship with plaintiff is insufficient proof of a causal connection between publication of the letter and any alleged loss by plaintiff. Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish actual damage. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, we find that nominal damages were properly set at one cent (see, Zator v Buchel, 231 App Div 334). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered June 19, 1990, which, insofar as appealed from, found, after inquest without a jury, that plaintiff should be awarded damages in the amount of one cent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The within libel action arose from a letter, dated October 31, 1988, which was written by defendant to a client of plaintiff, an attorney. Since the court’s granting of summary judgment to plaintiff on default was not contested, the only question before us is whether the court properly set damages in the amount of one cent.

We find that the mere fact that plaintiff’s client, the recipient of the letter, later terminated her relationship with plaintiff is insufficient proof of a causal connection between publication of the letter and any alleged loss by plaintiff. Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish actual damage. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, we find that nominal damages were properly set at one cent (see, Zator v Buchel, 231 App Div 334). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 416, 576 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suckenik-v-levitt-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack