Allen v. Gordon
| Decision Date | 12 January 1982 |
| Citation | 86 A.D.2d 514,446 N.Y.S.2d 48 |
| Parties | , 8 Media L. Rep. 1124 Eugene ALLEN, M. D., Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. Barbara GORDON, et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
D. B. Frind, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent-appellant.
E. A. Miller, New York City, for defendants-appellants-respondents.
Before MURPHY, P. J., and BIRNS, SULLIVAN, LUPIANO and BLOOM, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 2, 1981, which dismissed the third cause of action in the complaint on defendants' motion to dismiss the four causes of action in the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing also the first, second and fourth causes of action, and as so modified, affirmed without costs and disbursements.
Plaintiff's action is for libel, invasion of privacy, negligence and injunctive relief.
Under Rovello v. Orofino, 40 N.Y.2d 633, 389 N.Y.S.2d 314, 357 N.E.2d 970 and Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17 it is clear that where the affidavits on a motion to dismiss made under CPLR 3211(a)(7) conclusively establish that plaintiff has no cause of action, dismissal is warranted. Where the facts are not in dispute, the mere iteration of a cause of action is insufficient to sustain a complaint where such facts demonstrate the absence of a viable cause of action.
On this record it is conceded that defendant Gordon was never treated by plaintiff, that the name "Dr. Allen" used in said defendant's book was selected at random as a commonly used name, that no first name and no physical description of the person called "Dr. Allen" was given in the book (other than he had an "angular" face), that the location of the office of "Dr. Allen" in the book is different from the location of plaintiff's office and that there was a disclaimer prominently displayed immediately prior to the first page of the text which indicated that all names used, other than defendant Gordon's, were fictitious. Plaintiff clearly failed to show that the publication was "of and concerning" him and has failed to state a cause of action for libel. The mere fact that he is the only psychiatrist surnamed Allen in Manhattan is insufficient as the circumstances delineated above mandate the conclusion that there is nothing in the complaint showing that the book was about or referred to the plaintiff (see Julian v. American Business...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Houbigant, Inc.
...E.g., Julian v. American Business Consultants, 2 N.Y.2d 1, 18, 155 N.Y.S.2d 1, 16, 137 N.E.2d 1, 12 (N.Y.1956); Allen v. Gordon, 86 A.D.2d 514, 446 N.Y.S.2d 48, 49 (N.Y.), aff'd, 56 N.Y.2d 780, 452 N.Y.S.2d 25, 437 N.E.2d 284 (N.Y. 1982). They argue that the jury, not the court, determines ......
-
Champion v. Take Two Interactive Software, Inc.
...insufficient to sustain a complaint where such facts demonstrate the absence of a viable cause of action" ( Allen v. Gordon , 86 A.D.2d 514, 515, 446 N.Y.S.2d 48 [1st Dept. 1982] ). A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211[a][1] may only be granted where "documentary evidence" submitted ......
-
Cohen v. Herbal Concepts, Inc.
...a fictionalized portrayal of acts or events, without the use of one's name, picture or portrait. On that same basis, Allen v. Gordon, 86 A.D.2d 514, 446 N.Y.S.2d 48, is inapposite here. In that case, defendant's book portrayed a fictitious character, "Dr. Allen." The name had been selected ......
-
Aronson v. Wiersma
...can be read to be "of and concerning plaintiff" (see, Allen v. Gordon, 56 N.Y.2d 780, 452 N.Y.S.2d 25, 437 N.E.2d 284, affg. 86 A.D.2d 514, 446 N.Y.S.2d 48; Julian v. American Business Consultants, 2 N.Y.2d 1, 17, 155 N.Y.S.2d 1, 137 N.E.2d 1), it does not, on its face, defame plaintiff in ......