From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gould v. Broad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1964
22 A.D.2d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

November 9, 1964


In an action to recover damages for an alleged libelous statement, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 10, 1964, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements; motion granted, and complaint dismissed, without costs. It is undisputed that the alleged libelous statement of the defendant was contained in a professional report which he was retained to render as a doctor. Plaintiff concedes that under the circumstances the defendant was protected by a qualified privilege, but plaintiff claims that the privilege was vitiated by actual malice. However, plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of establishing evidentially such actual malice (see Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan, 7 N.Y.2d 56). Moreover, the proofs adduced established the contrary inference that the report of the defendant was free from malice. Since no other question of fact remains, summary judgment in defendant's favor should be granted. Christ, Acting P.J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gould v. Broad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1964
22 A.D.2d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Gould v. Broad

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY E. GOULD, Respondent, v. MONROE M. BROAD, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 9, 1964

Citations

22 A.D.2d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Silbowitz v. Lepper

The defendants had the right, absent malice, to criticize the official conduct of the plaintiff without fear…

LaMarque v. North Shore University Hospital

Concerning the cause of action for false imprisonment, defendants established that plaintiff's involuntary…