From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Groggins v. Daily Mirror, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1934
241 App. Div. 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)

Opinion

April, 1934.


Order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the second cause of action reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave to defendant to answer within ten days from the entry of the order herein. The second cause of action is insufficient in law. ( Kimmerle v. New York Evening Journal, 262 N.Y. 99, 102; Sydney v. MacFadden Newspaper Pub. Corp., 242 id. 208, 214; Wellman v. Sun Printing Pub. Assn., 66 Hun, 331, 344.) According to the allegations of the complaint, the article does not touch the reputation of the lawyer in his profession, and is not otherwise libelous per se as to him. Lazansky, P.J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Groggins v. Daily Mirror, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1934
241 App. Div. 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)
Case details for

Groggins v. Daily Mirror, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY S. GROGGINS and Another, Respondents, v. DAILY MIRROR, INC.…

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

Date published: Apr 1, 1934

Citations

241 App. Div. 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)

Citing Cases

Rose v. Daily Mirror, Inc.

The question now before us is thus in substance the same question that was decided in the Sorensen case.…