From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pauling v. National Review

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 14, 1968
22 N.Y.2d 818 (N.Y. 1968)

Opinion

Argued April 3, 1968

Decided June 14, 1968

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, SAMUEL J. SILVERMAN, J.

Louis Nizer and Paul Martinson for appellant.

C. Dickerman Williams, Robert M. Makla and Helene E. Schwartz for respondents.


We agree that the complaint before us was properly dismissed.

It is unnecessary to decide whether the charges leveled by the defendants against the plaintiff are true or justified. The statements which they made concerned one who, concededly, was and is a "public figure". (See Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 162.) Accordingly, we need go no further than to say that we find, as did the courts below, that the plaintiff failed to establish the fact, essential to the cause of action, that the defendants published the statements in question either with "knowledge" of their falsity or with "reckless disregard" of whether they were true or false ( New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-280; see, also, Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 573) or with a "high degree of awareness" of their probable falsity ( Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74) or that the defendants "in fact" entertained "serious doubts" as to their truth. ( St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731.)

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL and JASEN; Judge KEATING taking no part.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Pauling v. National Review

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 14, 1968
22 N.Y.2d 818 (N.Y. 1968)
Case details for

Pauling v. National Review

Case Details

Full title:LINUS C. PAULING, Appellant, v. NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., et al., Respondents

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 14, 1968

Citations

22 N.Y.2d 818 (N.Y. 1968)
292 N.Y.S.2d 913
239 N.E.2d 654

Citing Cases

Trails West v. Wolff

In this connection, it should be emphasized that, because of this constitutional privilege, we are not…

Silbowitz v. Lepper

Thus, the statement in the letter is true and the truth thereof would furnish an absolute defense. (See 34…