Weiss v. Nippe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiss v. Nippe

5 A.D.2d 789, 170 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7240

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 789 (Weiss v. Nippe) 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

Weiss v. Nippe, 5 A.D.2d 789, 170 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for slander the appeals are from orders denying appellant’s motions (1) to strike out for insufficiency two affirmative defenses, and (2) to strike out certain items from respondent’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order denying motion to strike out defenses modified by adding thereto a provision that the amended complaint be dismissed pursuant to subdivision 6 of rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice, with leave to serve a further amended complaint. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. The further amended complaint shall be served, if appellant be so advised, within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon. The amended complaint, which does not plead special damages, states no cause of action since the alleged defamatory words are not slanderous per se (Gurtler v. Union Parts Mfg. Co., 285 App. Div. 643, affd. 1 N Y 2d 5; May v. Peekskill Military Academy, 1 A D 2d 960). Appeal from order denying motion to modify the demand for a bill of particulars dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for slander the appeals are from orders denying appellant’s motions (1) to strike out for insufficiency two affirmative defenses, and (2) to strike out certain items from respondent’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order denying motion to strike out defenses modified by adding thereto a provision that the amended complaint be dismissed pursuant to subdivision 6 of rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice, with leave to serve a further amended complaint. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. The further amended complaint shall be served, if appellant be so advised, within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon. The amended complaint, which does not plead special damages, states no cause of action since the alleged defamatory words are not slanderous per se (Gurtler v. Union Parts Mfg. Co., 285 App. Div. 643, affd. 1 N Y 2d 5; May v. Peekskill Military Academy, 1 A D 2d 960). Appeal from order denying motion to modify the demand for a bill of particulars dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 789, 170 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiss-v-nippe-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack