From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kent v. City of Buffalo

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 18, 1971
277 N.E.2d 669 (N.Y. 1971)

Opinion

Argued October 13, 1971

Decided November 18, 1971

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, GILBERT H. KING, J.

Frank G. Raichle, Ralph L. Halpern and Alger A. Williams for appellant.

Courtland R. LaVallee for respondent.


Order reversed, without costs, and the complaint dismissed in the following memorandum: We approve the rationale of the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division and write only to note that upon application of the rule of Rosenbloom v. Metromedia ( 403 U.S. 29, 52), decided subsequent to the Appellate Division decision, we find the evidence too insubstantial to constitute "clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." (and see Frink v. McEldowney, 29 N.Y.2d 720).

Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL, JASEN and GIBSON.


Summaries of

Kent v. City of Buffalo

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 18, 1971
277 N.E.2d 669 (N.Y. 1971)
Case details for

Kent v. City of Buffalo

Case Details

Full title:FLORENCE KENT, as Guardian ad Litem of RONALD KENT, et al., Respondents…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 18, 1971

Citations

277 N.E.2d 669 (N.Y. 1971)
277 N.E.2d 669
327 N.Y.S.2d 653

Citing Cases

Doubleday Co. Inc. v. Rogers

Contento v. Mitchell, 28 Cal.App.3d 356, 104 Cal.Rptr. 591 (1972); Lundquist v. Alewine, 397 So.2d 1148…

Vinci v. Gannett Co.

The public always has had a vital interest in proper enforcement of its criminal laws. Certainly an…