Kruesi v. Money Management Letter
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Summary judgment was properly granted to defendant in this defamation action. All but one of the alleged defamatory statements in the published article are truthful. The one statement that could conceivably be construed as an attack on plaintiff’s professional competence or character, to wit, "marketing people are paid to sell”, is a statement of opinion, and thus not actionable (see, e.g., Parks v Steinbrenner, 131 AD2d 60; see also, Brian v Richardson, 87 NY2d 46) and, in any event, no special damage is alleged. Moreover, defendant *308did not act in a "grossly irresponsible manner” by…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Martin v. City of CohoesNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Chapadeau v. Utica Observer-Dispatch, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Brian v. RichardsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Parks v. SteinbrennerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Quinn v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Baines v. Daily News L.P.New York Supreme Court · 2015
- M&T Bank Corp. v. Moody's Invs. Servs., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Prince Ex Rel. D'Lites L.A.M.D. B.H., Inc. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016