Feldman v. Bernham
| Decision Date | 19 November 1959 |
| Citation | 163 N.E.2d 145,194 N.Y.S.2d 41,7 N.Y.2d 772 |
| Parties | , 163 N.E.2d 145 Rubin FELDMAN, Appellant, v. Joseph BERNHAM et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 6 A.D.2d 498, 179 N.Y.S.2d 881.
Plaintiff, an attorney, brought a libel action against three attorneys as defendants, and against a fourth defendant, who was a former client of the plaintiff. The libel action was based on affidavits which had charged that plaintiff violated attorney-client relationship by revealing privileged and confidential communications and privileged matter learned and obtained while counsel for the defendant, who was a former client of the plaintiff, and that plaintiff had instigated an action against that defendant, for an improper purpose, and that he had brought on an examination before trial for an improper purpose, and that he was wrongfully withholding property belonging to others. The complaint in the libel action charged that matter published in affidavits concerning plaintiff was wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in the action brought against that defendant, who was formerly the client of the plaintiff, and was not pertinent or germane, and was not privileged.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Henry Epstein, J., entered an order denying the motion of the defendants to dismiss or strike certain paragraph of the complaint as sham, and the defendants appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed the order, directed judgment to be entered in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint, and held that oral or written defamatory statements made by an attorney or a party in course of judicial proceedings are privileged, if statements are material or pertinent to issues involved, and that affidavits were pertinent, and that matter contained in affidavits was absolutely privileged, and that complaint was insufficient to state a cause of action.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bridge CAT Scan Associates v. Ohio-Nuclear Inc.
...(S.D.N. Y.1976); Feldman v. Bernham, 6 A.D.2d 498, 500, 179 N.Y.S.2d 881, 883 (1st Dep't 1958) (per curiam), aff'd, 7 N.Y.2d 772, 163 N.E.2d 145, 194 N.Y.S.2d 41 (1959) (mem.); see also Seltzer v. Fields, 20 A.D.2d 60, 244 N.Y.S.2d 792 (1st Dep't 18 23 N.Y.2d 592, 246 N.E.2d 333, 298 N.Y.S.......
-
Simon v. Potts
...340; Zefferer v. Campbell, 3 A.D.2d 856, 161 N.Y.S.2d 497; Feldman v. Bernham, 6 A.D.2d 498, 179 N.Y.S.2d 881, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 772, 194 N.Y.S.2d 41, 163 N.E.2d 145.) In Zefferer v. Campbell, supra, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirming an order granting a motion to dismiss a co......
-
Dachowitz v. Kranis
...privileged if, by any view or under any circumstances, it may be considered pertinent to the litigation. (See Feldm v. Bernham, 7 N.Y.2d 772, 194 N.Y.S.2d 41, 163 N.E.2d 145, affg. 6 A.D.2d 498, 500, 179 N.Y.S.2d 881; People ex rel. Bensky v. Warden, 258 N.Y. 55, 59-60, 179 N.E.2d 257; Youm......
-
Seltzer v. Fields
...'may possibly be pertinent' they are privileged (Feldman v. Bernham, 6 A.D.2d 498, 500, 179 N.Y.S.2d 881, 883, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 772, 194 N.Y.S.2d 41, 163 N.E.2d 145; People ex rel. Bensky v. Warden of City Prison, 258 N.Y. 55, 59, 179 N.E. 257, 258; Andrews v. Gardiner, 224 N.Y. 440, 445, 121......