Universal Oven Co. v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Universal Oven Co. v. Williams

29 A.D.2d 782, 290 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4558

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 782 (Universal Oven Co. v. Williams) 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

Universal Oven Co. v. Williams, 29 A.D.2d 782, 290 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated appeals, plaintiff in Action No. 1 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 12, 1967, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment; and defendant Robert W. Williams in Action No. 2 appeals from so much of an order of the same court dated August 21,1967 as, upon resettlement of a prior order, denied a motion, insofar as made by him, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order in Action No. 1 affirmed and order in Action No. 2 affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs’and disbursements in each appeal. No opinion. Christ, Rabin and Munder, JJ., concur; Beldoek, P. J., concurs in result, although he adheres to the views stated in the dissent in Williams v. Williams (27 A D 2d 550). Hopkins, J., concurs in the affirmance of the order in Action No. 1 and concurs in result in the affirmance as to the order in Action No. 2, with the following memorandum: I am constrained under the authority of Williams v. Williams (27 A D 2d 550) to sustain the validity of the complaint, though I adhere to the views stated in the dissent therein. In addition, I am of the opinion that actual malice (as distinguished from implied malice) was not sufficiently shown to justify a submission of that issue to the jury (cf. Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 7 N Y 2d 56, 64; Sheridan v. Crisona, 14 N Y 2d 108, 114; Gilberg v. Goffi, 21 A D 2d 517, affd. 15 N Y 2d 1023). Appellant Robert W. Williams, at the least, had a qualified privilege to transmit a copy of the complaint in Action No. 1 to persons with whom the plaintiff in that action dealt; and falsity alone would not render him liable (Loewinthan v. Le Vine, 299 N. Y. 372, 375). I see no evidence here of “ ‘ personal spite or ill will, or culpable recklessness or negligence ’ ”, which are the indicia of actual malice (Hoeppner v. Dunkirk Print. Co., 254 N. Y. 95, 106).

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

In consolidated appeals, plaintiff in Action No. 1 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 12, 1967, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment; and defendant Robert W. Williams in Action No. 2 appeals from so much of an order of the same court dated August 21,1967 as, upon resettlement of a prior order, denied a motion, insofar as made by him, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order in Action No. 1 affirmed and order in Action No. 2 affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs’and disbursements in each appeal. No opinion. Christ, Rabin and Munder, JJ., concur; Beldoek, P. J., concurs in result, although he adheres to the views stated in the dissent in Williams v. Williams (27 A D 2d 550). Hopkins, J., concurs in the affirmance of the order in Action No. 1 and concurs in result in the affirmance as to the order in Action No. 2, with the following memorandum: I am constrained under the authority of Williams v. Williams (27 A D 2d 550) to sustain the validity of the complaint, though I adhere to the views stated in the dissent therein. In addition, I am of the opinion that actual malice (as distinguished from implied malice) was not sufficiently shown to justify a submission of that issue to the jury (cf. Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 7 N Y 2d 56, 64; Sheridan v. Crisona, 14 N Y 2d 108, 114; Gilberg v. Goffi, 21 A D 2d 517, affd. 15 N Y 2d 1023). Appellant Robert W. Williams, at the least, had a qualified privilege to transmit a copy of the complaint in Action No. 1 to persons with whom the plaintiff in that action dealt; and falsity alone would not render him liable (Loewinthan v. Le Vine, 299 N. Y. 372, 375). I see no evidence here of “ ‘ personal spite or ill will, or culpable recklessness or negligence ’ ”, which are the indicia of actual malice (Hoeppner v. Dunkirk Print. Co., 254 N. Y. 95, 106).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 782, 290 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/universal-oven-co-v-williams-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack