Hewitt v. Wasek

• Decision Date: 31 August 1962
• Citation: Hewitt v. Wasek, 35 Misc.2d 946, 231 N.Y.S.2d 884 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)
• Parties: Ina HEWITT, Plaintiff, v. Catherine WASEK, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 884

231 N.Y.S.2d 884

35 Misc.2d 946

Ina HEWITT, Plaintiff, v.Catherine WASEK, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Chemung County.

Aug. 31, 1962.

Hoover & Peterson, Elmira (J. R. Hoover, Elmira, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Rhodes & Levinger, Elmira (Wilfrid E. Rhodes, Elmira, of counsel), for defendant.

ROBERT O. BRINK, Justice.

This is a motion to dismiss the complaint in the above-entitled action on the grounds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.The defendant has also moved to strike from the Complaint certain allegations claimed to be irrelevant, frivolous, redundant, unnecessary and scandalous.

Plaintiff's complaint sets forth a cause of action for slander based on the following words alleged to have been uttered by the defendant'that the plaintiff, Ina Hewitt, was keeping company with and having an affair with a married man'.The complaint further alleges that these words were false and defamatory and imputed to the plaintiff unchastity and infidelity to her husband; that they were published maliciously and for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff's good name and reputation.

No innuendo or special damages are alleged in the complaint.The question before this Court is whether the alleged remarks of the defendant are slanderous per se within the meaning and purport of Rule 97 of the Rules of Civil Practice.

It probably cannot be seriously contended that the words 'keeping company with a married man' standing by themselves would be sufficient to impute the unchastity of the plaintiff.While these words in their ordinary context indicate a continued association between persons of the opposite sex for the purpose of courtship, they do not necessarily imply sexual intimacy.Does the addition of the words 'and having an affair with a married man' when referring to a married woman necessarily impute unchastity?

The word affair is a broad term with many meanings.It may be assumed here that in the context in which it is alleged to have been used its implication may be narrowed to mean a love affair .Does the statement that a married woman is having a love affair with a married man necessarily impute unchastity?Probably in this age of sex glorification, a listener to such a statement might jump to such a conclusion.However, in the legal question before this Court, something more is involved.Not only from the trend of the decisions of the Courts of this State, but also by sound legal reasoning, before a court can classify a statement as slanderous per se, the meaning of the words must be unequivocally clear and definite so that there can be no possible question as to their import.When a statement is held to be libelous or slanderous per se, it...