Cole Fisher Rogow, Inc. v. Carl Ally, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. The advertisement, which forms the predicate for the charge of defamation, constitutes protected fair comment under the common law. (See, e.g., Foley v. Press Pub. Co., 226 App. Div. 535 .) It is true, as the plaintiff con *945 tends, that proof of malice would defeat that defense. However, treating the applications, made by the defendants on affidavits, as motions for summary judgment under CPLR 3211 (subd. [c]), the plaintiff has failed to state sufficient evidentiary facts, warranting a trial, to support its allegation that the defendants were motivated by malice. (Stillman v. Ford, 22 N Y 2d 48, 53; Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N. Y., 7 N Y 2d 56, 60.)
Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur.
Order affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 28 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals1
- Federal District Courts9
- State Highest Courts2
- State Appellate Courts13
- State Trial Courts3
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.