General
Lester E. May, Respondent, v. Peekskill Military Academy et al., Appellants; Peter P. George, Respondent, v. Peekskill Military Academy et al., Appellants; Robert Ryan, Respondent, v. Peekskill Military Academy et al., Appellants
1 A.D.2d 960·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1956·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Lester E. May, Respondent, v. Peekskill Military Academy et al., Appellants. Peter P. George, Respondent, v. Peekskill Military Academy et al., Appellants. Robert Ryan, Respondent, v. Peekskill Military Academy et al., Appellants.
[MAJORITY]
In three separate but similar actions by three separate persons to recover damages for libel, the appeals are from orders insofar as they deny a motion in each action to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. Orders, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. Whether or not the matter stated in the letter addressed to the parents of the cadets at the appellant school is privileged is immaterial on the motions to dismiss the complaints for insufficiency. Privilege is a matter of defense to be pleaded and proved. (Ostrowe v. Lee, 256 N. Y. 36, 41; Kennedy v. James Butler, Inc., 245 N. Y. 204, 207.) Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.