From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

May v. Peekskill Military Academy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 9, 1956
1 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

Opinion

April 9, 1956


In three separate but similar actions by three separate persons to recover damages for slander, the appeals are from orders insofar as they grant a motion in each action to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency, with leave to plead over. Orders, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. It is alleged that respondents falsely spoke of appellants that their plot (which resulted in their dismissal from employment in the respondent school) was "Communist-inspired" and "Communist-led". Assuming that the words would have been libelous ( Menchor v. Chesley, 297 N.Y. 94), they are nevertheless not slanderous per se ( Gurtler v. Union Parts Mfg. Co., 285 App. Div. 643, affd. 1 N.Y.2d 5) in the absence of allegations that the words were spoken of appellants with reference to their characters or conduct in their profession. The present complaints contain no such allegations. Nolan, P.J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

May v. Peekskill Military Academy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 9, 1956
1 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)
Case details for

May v. Peekskill Military Academy

Case Details

Full title:LESTER E. MAY, Respondent, v. PEEKSKILL MILITARY ACADEMY et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 9, 1956

Citations

1 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

Citing Cases

Weiss v. Nippe

The further amended complaint shall be served, if appellant be so advised, within 10 days after the entry of…

Metropolitan Petroleum v. Sheehy

Possible defenses to the action are immaterial in determining whether the complaint states a good cause of…