Hofstadter v. Bienstock

Full title: MORRIS H. HOFSTADTER, Appellant, v. ALEXANDER BIENSTOCK, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1925

213 App. Div. 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)

Opinion

March, 1925.

Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County.

Present — Clarke, P.J., Dowling, Merrell, McAvoy and Burr, JJ.; Dowling, J., dissents in memorandum.

PER CURIAM:

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the respondent, upon the authority of the majority opinion in Villemin v. Brown ( 193 App. Div. 777). The complaint in the case at bar does not allege that the alleged slanderous word was applied to the plaintiff in his profession.

DOWLING, J. (dissenting):

I dissent and vote to reverse, upon the ground that the use of the word "crook" applied to an individual is slanderous per se. (See my dissenting opinion in Villemin v. Brown, 193 App. Div. 779. See, also, Pandolfo v. Bank of Benson, 273 Fed. 51, which expressly holds that the word "crook" when used with reference to human conduct of an individual is slanderous per se.) Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Settle order on notice.