Gross v. Cantor
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | LOUGHRAN |
| Citation | 270 N.Y. 93,200 N.E. 592 |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1936 |
| Parties | GROSS v. CANTOR et al. |
270 N.Y. 93
200 N.E. 592
GROSS
v.
CANTOR et al.
Court of Appeals of New York.
March 3, 1936.
Action by Ben S. Gross against Eddie Cantor and others. From a judgment, entered February 9, 1935, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion by defendants for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it did not set forth facts constituting a cause of action (243 App.Div. 625 277 N.Y.S. 980), plaintiff appeals.
Judgments reversed, and motion to dismiss complaint denied.
[270 N.Y. 93]Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second department.
Benjamin C. Ribman, of New York City, for appellant.
LOUGHRAN, Judge.
The question presented by this appeal is whether the complaint is sufficient as the statement of a cause of action for a libel upon the individual plaintiff. He alleges that the moving defendants printed and circulated in a magazine called ‘Radio Guide’ the following article:
‘Eddie Cantor, hailed by many admirers as America's foremost comedian, has a pet feud. It involves all save one of the radio editors in New York City. Eddie carefully excludes this editor as being the only radio critic entitled to his job. Interest in the feud is intensified by the fact that Cantor does not name the man he excepts.
‘At all the other radio editors and columnists of New York, the comedian hurls his lance of vitriolic criticism. It is a gesture of fearlessness. Few leaders in the entertainment world have the courage to attack the critics and the editors of the metropolis.
‘Cantor has enlisted the aid of Radio Guide in presenting the facts of the feud to the public. He is eager to make especially clear his friendliness for all the radio editors outside New York.
[270 N.Y. 95]‘The story is told in a telegram sent by Cantor to Radio Guide. The telegram follows:
“Editor, Radio Guide: En route to California from New York several newspaper friends have asked me about the feud between the radio editors and myself.
“I have always had the friendlies relationship with the radio editors outside New York City. They have criticized my work but theirs honest criticism with nothing personal behind it. I have a great respect for their sincerity and judgment.
“However, I shall continue to fight those New York radio editors who are experts
[200 N.E. 593
at logrolling, who use their columns for delving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 3 Div. 961
...then recognition of individuals libeled by group defamation becomes clear.' The same principle is aptly stated in Gross v. Cantor, 270 N.Y. 93, 200 N.E. 592, as 'An action for defamation lies only in case the defendant has published the matter 'of and concerning the plaintiff.' * * * Conseq......
-
Bee Publications, Inc. v. Cheektowaga Times, Inc.
...1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094) must show: (1) that the allegedly defamatory words were "of and concerning" him (see Gross v. Cantor, 270 N.Y. 93, 96, 200 N.E. 592); (2) that they were likely to be understood as defamatory by the ordinary person (see James v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 38......
-
Nat. Nutritional Foods Ass'n v. Whelan, No. 78 Civ. 6276.
...can be said to apply to all its members may a member of the group, or a representative such as NNFA, sue for defamation. Gross v. Cantor, 270 N.Y. 93, 200 N.E. 592 (1936); Schutzman v. News Syndicate Co., 60 Misc.2d 827, 304 N.Y.S.2d 167, 169 (Sup.Ct. Nassau Co. 1969). The general issue was......
-
Hughes v. New England Newspaper Pub. Co.
...Tibbles, 7 Cir., 215 F. 99;Watson v. Detroit Journal Co., 143 Mich. 430, 107 N.W. 81, 5 L.R.A., N.S., 480, 8 Ann.Cas. 131;Gross v. Cantor, 270 N.Y. 93, 200 N.E. 592; Burkhart v. North American Co., 214 Penn.St. 39, 63 A. 410;Schoenfeld v. Journal Co., 204 Wis. 132, 235 N.W. 442. Other than ......
-
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 3 Div. 961
...then recognition of individuals libeled by group defamation becomes clear.' The same principle is aptly stated in Gross v. Cantor, 270 N.Y. 93, 200 N.E. 592, as 'An action for defamation lies only in case the defendant has published the matter 'of and concerning the plaintiff.' * * * Conseq......
-
Bee Publications, Inc. v. Cheektowaga Times, Inc.
...1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094) must show: (1) that the allegedly defamatory words were "of and concerning" him (see Gross v. Cantor, 270 N.Y. 93, 96, 200 N.E. 592); (2) that they were likely to be understood as defamatory by the ordinary person (see James v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 38......
-
Nat. Nutritional Foods Ass'n v. Whelan, No. 78 Civ. 6276.
...can be said to apply to all its members may a member of the group, or a representative such as NNFA, sue for defamation. Gross v. Cantor, 270 N.Y. 93, 200 N.E. 592 (1936); Schutzman v. News Syndicate Co., 60 Misc.2d 827, 304 N.Y.S.2d 167, 169 (Sup.Ct. Nassau Co. 1969). The general issue was......
-
Hughes v. New England Newspaper Pub. Co.
...Tibbles, 7 Cir., 215 F. 99;Watson v. Detroit Journal Co., 143 Mich. 430, 107 N.W. 81, 5 L.R.A., N.S., 480, 8 Ann.Cas. 131;Gross v. Cantor, 270 N.Y. 93, 200 N.E. 592; Burkhart v. North American Co., 214 Penn.St. 39, 63 A. 410;Schoenfeld v. Journal Co., 204 Wis. 132, 235 N.W. 442. Other than ......