Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Michael FRAZIER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOCIETY OF STAGE DIRECTORS AND CHOREOGRAPHERS, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered on or about September 29, 1996, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the causes of action for libel and denied plaintiffs' applications for injunctive relief and to hold defendants in contempt for violating a temporary restraining order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the motion court's findings that the libel causes of action were not viable because defendants' statements in their newsletters were true and also that defendants' statements were shielded by the common interest qualified privilege, since the communication to subscribers involved in the industry was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances (Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 115, 833 [5th ed] ), such that defendants did not forfeit the privilege by excessive publication (cf., Moyle v. Franz, 267 App.Div. 423, 425-426, 46 N.Y.S.2d 667, affd. 293 N.Y. 842, 59 N.E.2d 437). Further disclosure would not have uncovered any relevant evidence. We also agree that plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact with regard to malice (see, Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 437-438, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344; Foster v. Churchill, 87 N.Y.2d 744, 751-752, 642 N.Y.S.2d 583, 665 N.E.2d 153).
Denial of plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief was necessitated by the dismissal of their libel causes of action. The denial of plaintiffs' application to hold defendants in contempt was correct and no hearing was required in view of defendants' unchallenged demonstration that any violation of the temporary restraining order was neither knowing nor willful (see, Coronet Capital Co. v. Spodek, 202 A.D.2d 20, 29, 615 N.Y.S.2d 351).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 13, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)