From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gunduz v. New York Post Company, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 3, 1992
188 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 3, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.).


The allegedly defamatory headline "PUBLIC ENEMY NO. 1", was a fair index of the truthful matter contained in the related news article and is therefore not actionable (see, Schermerhorn v Rosenberg, 73 A.D.2d 276, 286). Plaintiff discounts the impact of the adjacent sub-headline "City moves to yank license of Apple's `worst taxi driver'". While the sub-headline appears in much smaller print, it is adjacent to and amplifies the words of the headline, and, indeed gives it a much more restricted meaning (see, Gambuzza v Time, Inc., 18 A.D.2d 351, 353), by clarifying for the reader that plaintiff's notoriety is due not to his "general criminality", as plaintiff puts it, but rather to the City's efforts to revoke the license of its "worst taxi driver". This was a fair index of the inside news article reporting that plaintiff had received more summonses and violations than any other cab driver in the City, and describing incidents in which plaintiff, according to the City Taxi and Limousine Commission, overcharged and abused customers.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Gunduz v. New York Post Company, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 3, 1992
188 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Gunduz v. New York Post Company, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:VEHBI GUNDUZ, Appellant, v. NEW YORK POST COMPANY, INC., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 3, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
590 N.Y.S.2d 495

Citing Cases

Reeves v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.

Karl did not dispute either the accuracy of these statements or the authenticity of the recordings in his…

White v. Berkshire-Hathaway

This threshold question is one of law for the court, not a question of fact for a jury ( see Pritchard v.…