Legal Opinion
Bridgwood v. Newspaper PM Inc.
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 15, 1949PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHallinan, J.
Motion by plaintiff for an order striking out the first and second separate defenses as legally insufficient (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 109, subd. 6).
The action is for libel in publishing an article referring to the testimony before the G-rand Jury of “ 10 Queens bookies ” *751concerning ‘ ‘ graft and protection money. ’ ’ The article stated in part: “ The 10, including such colorfully Runyonesque, characters as Willie the Ice, Big Briggie, Little Briggie, and Firpo, were said by Assistant D. A. * * * to have confirmed in part Pledge’s Monday testimony about having to pay at least three different…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Moore v. . FrancisNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Corrigan v. . Bobbs-Merrill Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Sanford v. . BennettNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Jacobs v. HerlandsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
- May v. Syracuse Newspapers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gasperini v. ManginelliNew York Supreme Court · 1949
- Bridgwood v. Newspaper PM Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1949