Ithaca College v. Yale Daily News Pub. Co., Inc.

• Citation: 445 N.Y.S.2d 621,85 A.D.2d 817
• Parties: , 1 Ed. Law Rep. 1236, 7 Media L. Rep. 2510 ITHACA COLLEGE, Appellant, v. YALE DAILY NEWS PUBLISHING CO., INC., Doing Business as The Yale Daily News, et al., Respondents.
• Decision Date: 17 December 1981
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 621

445 N.Y.S.2d 621

85 A.D.2d 817, 1 Ed. Law Rep. 1236, 7

Media L. Rep. 2510

ITHACA COLLEGE, Appellant, v. YALE DAILY NEWS PUBLISHING CO., INC., Doing Business as The Yale Daily News, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Dec. 17, 1981.

Wiggins, Tsapis, Holmberg & Galbraith, Ithaca, (Dirk A. Galbraith, Ithaca, of counsel), for appellant.

Parker, Duryee, Zunino, Malone & Carter, New York City (William Lee Kinnally, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

Before MAHONEY, P. J., and SWEENEY, KANE, YESAWICH and WEISS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered November 17, 1980 in Tompkins County, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff, a liberal arts college with an enrollment of approximately 2,000 students, instituted the instant libel action against defendants as a result of an article appearing in a book published by defendant Berkley Publishing Corporation. The following passages contained in the book and expressing evaluations of student life at plaintiff Ithaca College are alleged to be false and defamatory: "Sex, drugs, and booze are the staples of life * * *. Sex is casual, and formal dating is unheard of; the pickup scene thrives in Ithaca * * *. The use of pot is a foregone conclusion, and cocaine occasionally manages to wend its way into the hands of those who can afford it. Speed and downers are common * * * ".

Special Term dismissed the complaint concluding, inter alia, that the complained of language was not libelous per se and the ad damnum clause of the complaint lacked factual support. This appeal ensued and plaintiff raises several issues in urging reversal.

It is well established that unless the complained of language is libelous per se, special damages must be pleaded with sufficient particularity to demonstrate that a viable cause of action in defamation exists (Morrison v. National Broadcasting Co., 19 N.Y.2d 453, 458, 280 N.Y.S.2d 641, 227 N.E.2d 572, 35 N.Y.Jur., Libel and Slander, § 169). The instant complaint contains no such particularizations. In considering whether the complained of language is libelous per se, it is for the court to determine if there is a reasonable basis for drawing a defamatory conclusion (James v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 419, 386 N.Y.S.2d 871, 353 N.E.2d 834). We conclude not. While the language may be offensive to the officials of the college, a fair reading of...