Tomashefsky v. Litmor Publishing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tomashefsky v. Litmor Publishing Corp.

47 A.D.2d 647, 366 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8829

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.2d 647 (Tomashefsky v. Litmor Publishing Corp.) 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

Tomashefsky v. Litmor Publishing Corp., 47 A.D.2d 647, 366 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a libel action, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 14, 1974, as amended by a further order of the same court, dated May 2, 1974, as denied his motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaim and affirmative defenses, except the seventh defense, lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants (as to .that defense a traverse hearing was ordered). Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision that the denial of plaintiff’s motion is limited to the first to sixth, inclusive, and the eighth defenses and that plaintiff’s motion is granted as to the combined counterclaim and ninth affirmative defense. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In the paragraphs of defendants’ pleading comprising what is labeled a “ First, Separate and Distinct [648]*648Counterclaim and Ninth,Affirmative Defense’’, defendants, as stated' iq theirbrief on this appeal, seek recovery"of monetary damages from- plaintiff on'.a1 theo!ry of-prima facie, tórt. We find.thé facts as alleged insufficient to sustain, such a eause of action of .defense,' HppMns, Acting P. J.pMartuseello. Brennan. ■ Benjamin and-¡Shapiro,' JJ.,-concur. . ,

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

In a libel action, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 14, 1974, as amended by a further order of the same court, dated May 2, 1974, as denied his motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaim and affirmative defenses, except the seventh defense, lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants (as to .that defense a traverse hearing was ordered). Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision that the denial of plaintiff’s motion is limited to the first to sixth, inclusive, and the eighth defenses and that plaintiff’s motion is granted as to the combined counterclaim and ninth affirmative defense. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In the paragraphs of defendants’ pleading comprising what is labeled a “ First, Separate and Distinct [648]*648Counterclaim and Ninth,Affirmative Defense’’, defendants, as stated' iq theirbrief on this appeal, seek recovery"of monetary damages from- plaintiff on'.a1 theo!ry of-prima facie, tórt. We find.thé facts as alleged insufficient to sustain, such a eause of action of .defense,' HppMns, Acting P. J.pMartuseello. Brennan. ■ Benjamin and-¡Shapiro,' JJ.,-concur. . ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 647, 366 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomashefsky-v-litmor-publishing-corp-nyappdiv-1975.