Taylor v. American Export Lines, Inc.

S.D. New York

Taylor v. American Export Lines, Inc.

222 F. Supp. 1022, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6676

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedOctober 3, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 F. Supp. 1022 (Taylor v. American Export Lines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. American Export Lines, Inc., 222 F. Supp. 1022, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6676 (S.D.N.Y. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

WEINFELD, District Judge.

The first counterclaim of each defendant, insofar as it alleges he was falsely accused by plaintiff of committing an assault and battery, is sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss. The accusation is broad enough to charge a serious law violation (e. g., 18 U.S.C. § 113 (1958)) and as such may be deemed slanderous per se (Roberts v. Rothstein, 32 Misc.2d 643, 224 N.Y.S.2d 139 (1961)).

As to the charge that the defendants were drunk aboard ship, the authorities are clear that unless an allegedly defamatory statement is uttered of' and concerning one in his occupation or business, it is not slanderous per se and,, absent allegations of special damage, is not actionable (Gurtler v. Union Parts-Mfg. Co., 285 App.Div. 643, 140 N.Y.S.2d 254 (2d Dep’t 1955), aff’d, 1 N.Y.2d 5,. 132 N.E.2d 889, 150 N.Y.S.2d 4 (1956)).. While there are allegations that each defendant was serving as an officer aboard, the vessel, it is not clear that the words-“of being drunk” were uttered of him in his capacity as a ship’s officer. Hence,, this portion of the counterclaim is dismissed with leave, however, to serve an amended pleading within twenty (20) days hereof (see Torres v. Huner, 150 App.Div. 798, 135 N.Y. Supp. 332 (2d Dep’t 1912); Goodstein v. Chalfonte Hotel Corp., 198 Misc. 1068, 101 N.Y.S.2d 851 (1950); and Moran v. Singer, Sup., 75 N.Y.S.2d 874 (1947)).

As to the second counterclaim, which' charges plaintiff with libel in advancing the allegations in his complaint, the motion to dismiss is granted (Spieler v. Gottesman, 12 App.Div.2d 894, 210 N.Y. S.2d 102 (1st Dep’t 1961), aff’d, 11 N.Y. 2d 815, 182 N.E.2d 110, 227 N.Y.S.2d 437 (1962)).

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

WEINFELD, District Judge.

The first counterclaim of each defendant, insofar as it alleges he was falsely accused by plaintiff of committing an assault and battery, is sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss. The accusation is broad enough to charge a serious law violation (e. g., 18 U.S.C. § 113 (1958)) and as such may be deemed slanderous per se (Roberts v. Rothstein, 32 Misc.2d 643, 224 N.Y.S.2d 139 (1961)).

As to the charge that the defendants were drunk aboard ship, the authorities are clear that unless an allegedly defamatory statement is uttered of' and concerning one in his occupation or business, it is not slanderous per se and,, absent allegations of special damage, is not actionable (Gurtler v. Union Parts-Mfg. Co., 285 App.Div. 643, 140 N.Y.S.2d 254 (2d Dep’t 1955), aff’d, 1 N.Y.2d 5,. 132 N.E.2d 889, 150 N.Y.S.2d 4 (1956)).. While there are allegations that each defendant was serving as an officer aboard, the vessel, it is not clear that the words-“of being drunk” were uttered of him in his capacity as a ship’s officer. Hence,, this portion of the counterclaim is dismissed with leave, however, to serve an amended pleading within twenty (20) days hereof (see Torres v. Huner, 150 App.Div. 798, 135 N.Y. Supp. 332 (2d Dep’t 1912); Goodstein v. Chalfonte Hotel Corp., 198 Misc. 1068, 101 N.Y.S.2d 851 (1950); and Moran v. Singer, Sup., 75 N.Y.S.2d 874 (1947)).

As to the second counterclaim, which' charges plaintiff with libel in advancing the allegations in his complaint, the motion to dismiss is granted (Spieler v. Gottesman, 12 App.Div.2d 894, 210 N.Y. S.2d 102 (1st Dep’t 1961), aff’d, 11 N.Y. 2d 815, 182 N.E.2d 110, 227 N.Y.S.2d 437 (1962)).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 F. Supp. 1022, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-american-export-lines-inc-nysd-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack