Weaver v. Reynolds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weaver v. Reynolds

208 A.D.2d 714, 617 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9970

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 714 (Weaver v. Reynolds) 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

Weaver v. Reynolds, 208 A.D.2d 714, 617 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9970 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for slander, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered March 5, 1993, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, inasmuch as the conflicting evidence submitted in relation to the motion raised triable issues of fact. Specifically, a question exists, inter alia, with respect to whether the allegedly defamatory remarks made by the defendant were uttered within the scope of his official duties as a Village Trustee, an inquiry which is relevant to his proffered defense of absolute privilege (see generally, Clark v McGee, 49 NY2d 613). Furthermore, an issue exists concerning whether the statements were made with actual malice so as to defeat the defense of qualified privilege (see generally, Liberman v [715]*715Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429; Toker v Pollak, 44 NY2d 211). In view of the foregoing, summary judgment is inappropriate on the present record. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for slander, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered March 5, 1993, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, inasmuch as the conflicting evidence submitted in relation to the motion raised triable issues of fact. Specifically, a question exists, inter alia, with respect to whether the allegedly defamatory remarks made by the defendant were uttered within the scope of his official duties as a Village Trustee, an inquiry which is relevant to his proffered defense of absolute privilege (see generally, Clark v McGee, 49 NY2d 613). Furthermore, an issue exists concerning whether the statements were made with actual malice so as to defeat the defense of qualified privilege (see generally, Liberman v [715]*715Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429; Toker v Pollak, 44 NY2d 211). In view of the foregoing, summary judgment is inappropriate on the present record. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 714, 617 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-v-reynolds-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack