Torts · MBE-tested
Earl Q. Peeper, Appellant, v. William Ledger et al., Respondents
225 A.D.2d 331638 N.Y.S.2d 912·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1996·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
Earl Q. Peeper, Appellant, v William Ledger et al., Respondents.
[638 NYS2d 912]
[MAJORITY]
This defamation action was properly dismissed as the complained-of statements are truthful, as demonstrated by the documentary evidence • (see, Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 42 NY2d 369, cert denied 434 US 969). Moreover, the writings at issue here are not susceptible of a defamatory interpretation (see, Cohn v National Broadcasting Co., 50 NY2d 885, cert denied 449 US 1022; compare, Herlihy v Metropolitan Museum of Art, 214 AD2d 250). Finally, since there is no evidence that defendant Berkeley was responsible for the publication of the writings at issue, no defamation action can lie against him (see, Russo v Padovano, 84 AD2d 925). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.