Tufano v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tufano v. Schwartz

95 A.D.2d 852, 464 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18799

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

DecidedJune 27, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 95 A.D.2d 852 (Tufano v. Schwartz) 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

Tufano v. Schwartz, 95 A.D.2d 852, 464 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a libel action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered July 12, 1982, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion to dismiss granted. The statement by defendant to Newsday that the cabinets built and installed by plaintiff were a “total misfit”, was merely an expression of dissatisfaction with plaintiff’s performance. As such, it was not libelous per se (Fink v Horn Constr. Co., 58 AD2d 574). Plaintiff’s failure to allege special damages in the complaint, therefore, requires dismissal for failure to state a cause of action (see Ruder & Finn v Seaboard Sur. Co., 52 NY2d 663, 670). Damiani, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In a libel action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered July 12, 1982, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion to dismiss granted. The statement by defendant to Newsday that the cabinets built and installed by plaintiff were a “total misfit”, was merely an expression of dissatisfaction with plaintiff’s performance. As such, it was not libelous per se (Fink v Horn Constr. Co., 58 AD2d 574). Plaintiff’s failure to allege special damages in the complaint, therefore, requires dismissal for failure to state a cause of action (see Ruder & Finn v Seaboard Sur. Co., 52 NY2d 663, 670). Damiani, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.2d 852, 464 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tufano-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack