Droner v. Schapp

• Decision Date: 25 May 1970
• Citation: 34 A.D.2d 823,311 N.Y.S.2d 934
• Parties: Peter D. DRONER, Respondent, v. Richard SCHAPP, Defendant, and Cowles Communications, Inc. and World Journal Tribune, Inc., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 934

311 N.Y.S.2d 934

34 A.D.2d 823

Peter D. DRONER, Respondent, v. Richard SCHAPP, Defendant, and Cowles Communications, Inc. and World Journal Tribune, Inc., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 25, 1970.

William A. Butler, Brooklyn, for plaintiff-respondent, Patrick I. Flannelly, Brooklyn, of counsel.

Chapman & Burke, New York City, for Cowles Communications, Inc., Edgar H. A. Chapman, New York City, of counsel.

Hall, McNicol, Marett & Hamilton, New York City, for World Journal Tribune, Inc., E. Douglas Hamilton, John D. Kousi, Donald G. McCabe, New York City, of counsel.

Before MUNDER, Acting P.J., and MARTUSCELLO, LATHAM, KLEINFELD and BENJAMIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for alleged libel, the appeals are from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both dated July 9, 1969, which respectively denied appellants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Orders reversed, on the law, with a separate bill of $10 costs and disbursements to each appellant, and each motion granted with $10 costs.

In our opinion the record establishes the truth of the subject publication, within the guidelines of Fleckenstein v. Friedman, 266 N.Y. 19, 23, 193 N.E. 537, 538 and Yarmove v. Retail Credit Co., 18 A.D.2d 790, 236 N.Y.S.2d 836, and truth is a complete, absolute defense (Shenkman v. O'Malley, 2 A.D.2d 567, 572, 157 N.Y.S.2d 290, 295; Dolcin Corp. v. Reader's Digest Assn., 7 A.D.2d 449, 454, 183 N.Y.S.2d 342, 347; Mack, Miller Candle Co. v. MacMillan Co., 239 App.Div. 738, 269 N.Y.S. 33, affd. 266 N.Y. 489, 195 N.E. 167).

Moreover, we believe this publication comes within the scope of the rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 and its progeny (see, e.g., Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456; Pauling v. National Review, 22 N.Y.2d 818, 292 N.Y.S.2d 913, 239 N.E.2d 654; Gilberg v. Goffi, 21 A.D.2d 517, 251 N.Y.S.2d 823, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 1023, 260 N.Y.S.2d 29, 207 N.E.2d 620; Wasserman v. Time, Inc., D.C.Cir., 424 F.2d 920; Cullen v. Grove Press, D.C., 276 F.Supp. 727; Fotochrome, Inc. v. New York Herald Tribune, 61 Misc.2d 226, 305 N.Y.S.2d 168, and cases cited therein; Altoona Clay Products v. Dun & Bradstreet, D.C., 286 F.Supp. 899; United Med. Labs. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 10 Cir., 404 F.2d 706, cert. den. 394 U.S. 921, 89 S.Ct. 1197, 22 L.Ed.2d 454; Arizona Biochemical Co. v. Hearst Corp., D.C., 302 F.Supp. 412; Holmes v. Curtis Pub. Co., D.C., 303 F.Supp. 522; Gilligan v. Farmer, 30 A.D.2d 26, 289 N.Y.S.2d 846). Hence, appellants could be held liable only if they knowingly or recklessly published a false, defamatory statement (Pauling v. National Review, Supra, 22 N.Y.2d p. 819, 292 N.Y.S.2d p. 914, 239 N.E.2d p. 654).

In this record there is no claim that appellants knew of any falsehood in the publication and it is undisputed that they did not. Similarly, there is no showing that they published it with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity; and their undisputed assertions that they relied on reputable sources of information are enough, per se, to disprove any such claim of...