Legal Opinion
Shulman v. Hunderfund
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 26, 2009PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Smith, J.
In this action for libel by a public figure, the record does not clearly and convincingly show that the statements in question were made with “actual malice,” as required by New York Times Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254 [1964]). We therefore hold that plaintiffs complaint against defendant James Hunderfund must be dismissed.
I
In May of 1999, plaintiff, Larry Shulman, a member of the Commack Board of Education, was a candidate for reelection. Hunderfund, the school superintendent, believed that Shulman wanted him fired and was opposed to his candidacy. On the eve of the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Steinhilber v. AlphonseNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Cholowsky v. CivilettiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Broich v. McGannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Baumblit Construction Corp. v. County of NassauAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Burke v. New York City Transit Auth.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019
- Eastwood v. HoeferAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.