Vecino v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vecino v. Martinez

24 A.D.2d 429, 260 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3915

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

DecidedJune 17, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 429 (Vecino v. Martinez) 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

Vecino v. Martinez, 24 A.D.2d 429, 260 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered November 30, 1964, unanimously reversed on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion to dismiss the complaint granted. Appellants and respondent for many years were fellow members of the same organization. The statements allegedly made by appellants with respect to respondent were made by reason of their common interest in and duty to the organization. As Silverman, J., pointed out in an earlier decision in this case (Vecino v. Unity Gallega of United States, N.Y.L.J., Oct. 19, 1964, p. 18, col. 1), a qualified privilege exists as to the statements made. The burden was on the respondent to present evidentiary facts from which a jury could infer malice (Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan, 7 N Y 2d 56). This respondent has failed to do. On the other hand appellants in their respective affidavits have set forth facts and circumstances which negate the existence of malice. Appeal from order entered on January 14,1965, denying defendants’ motion for reargument, dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order entered November 30, 1964, unanimously reversed on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion to dismiss the complaint granted. Appellants and respondent for many years were fellow members of the same organization. The statements allegedly made by appellants with respect to respondent were made by reason of their common interest in and duty to the organization. As Silverman, J., pointed out in an earlier decision in this case (Vecino v. Unity Gallega of United States, N.Y.L.J., Oct. 19, 1964, p. 18, col. 1), a qualified privilege exists as to the statements made. The burden was on the respondent to present evidentiary facts from which a jury could infer malice (Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan, 7 N Y 2d 56). This respondent has failed to do. On the other hand appellants in their respective affidavits have set forth facts and circumstances which negate the existence of malice. Appeal from order entered on January 14,1965, denying defendants’ motion for reargument, dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 429, 260 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vecino-v-martinez-nyappdiv-1965.