Legal Opinion
Loewinthan v. Beth David Hospital
New York Court of Appeals
Decided April 8, 1943PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Per curiam
The complaint should not have been dismissed as against these defendants-respondents. Their communications were protected by a qualified privilege but plaintiff’s proof made out a prima facie case of malice. (Ashcroft v. Hammond, 197 N. Y. 488.) The question was for the jury.
The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted with costs to abide the event.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.
Judgments reversed, etc.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ashcroft v. . HammondNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
3Cited by6 opinions
- Loewinthan v. Le VineNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
- Loewinthan v. Le VineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946
- Williams v. TritschlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Bakhshandeh v. American Cyanamid CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1962
- Gasperini v. ManginelliNew York Supreme Court · 1949
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.