Sutton v. Riggi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sutton v. Riggi

48 A.D.2d 912, 369 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10187

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

DecidedJune 23, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 912 (Sutton v. Riggi) 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

Sutton v. Riggi, 48 A.D.2d 912, 369 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a defamation action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 1, 1974, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. In our opinion, defendant’s remarks come within the scope of the rule enunciated in New York Times Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254). Hence, he may be held liable only if he knowingly or recklessly made a false, defamatory statement. There is no claim in the record that defendant knew of any falsehood in the statement. Similarly, it is clear that plaintiff will be unable to prove with "convincing clarity” that the statement was made "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times Co. v Sullivan, supra, pp 285-286). Under these circumstances, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted (Schwartz v Time, Inc., 71 Misc 2d 769, 773). Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In a defamation action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 1, 1974, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. In our opinion, defendant’s remarks come within the scope of the rule enunciated in New York Times Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254). Hence, he may be held liable only if he knowingly or recklessly made a false, defamatory statement. There is no claim in the record that defendant knew of any falsehood in the statement. Similarly, it is clear that plaintiff will be unable to prove with "convincing clarity” that the statement was made "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times Co. v Sullivan, supra, pp 285-286). Under these circumstances, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted (Schwartz v Time, Inc., 71 Misc 2d 769, 773). Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 912, 369 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-riggi-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack