From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kremer Construction Co., Inc. v. Garfinkel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 27, 1969
31 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Opinion

January 27, 1969


In an action for libel, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 31, 1968, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. We are of the opinion that the defense of qualified privilege is applicable ( Byam v. Collins, 111 N.Y. 143; Bingham v. Gaynor, 203 N.Y. 27). In view of the applicability of this defense it is incumbent upon plaintiff to establish by evidentiary facts its allegation of actual malice in order to overcome the defense of qualified privilege ( Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N Y, 7 N.Y.2d 56). Since plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements of showing evidentiary facts as opposed to making mere conclusory statements, the motion should have been granted. Brennan, Acting P.J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kremer Construction Co., Inc. v. Garfinkel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 27, 1969
31 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)
Case details for

Kremer Construction Co., Inc. v. Garfinkel

Case Details

Full title:KREMER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Respondent, v. BENJAMIN GARFINKEL, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 27, 1969

Citations

31 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Citing Cases

Ward Telecommunications & Computer Services, Inc. v. State

It is my opinion, and I so find, that claimant proved wanton and reckless negligence in the preparation of…

Steak Bit of Westbury, Inc. v. Newsday, Inc.

To defeat defendants' motion for summary judgment, Lollypop must do more than rely upon conclusory…