May v. Peekskill Military Academy

• Decision Date: 09 April 1956
• Parties: Lester E. MAY, Respondent, v. PEEKSKILL MILITARY ACADEMY, and Edward G. Halsey, Jr., William C. McConnell, H. Tilden Swan and Frank W. Lovejoy, individually and as Trustees of Peekskill Military Academy, and Howard Moore, Appellants. Peter P. GEORGE, Respondent, v. PEEKSKILL MILITARY ACADEMY, and Edward G. Halsey, Jr., William C. McConnell, H. Tilden Swan and Frank W. Lovejoy, individually and as Trustees of Peekskill Military Academy, and Howard Moore, Appellants. Robert RYAN, Respondent, v. PEEKSKILL MILITARY ACADEMY, and Edward G. Halsey, Jr., William C. McConnell, H. Tilden Swan and Frank W. Lovejoy, individually and as Trustees of Peekskill Military Academy, and Howard Moore, Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 262

150 N.Y.S.2d 262

1 A.D.2d 960

Lester E. MAY, Respondent, v. PEEKSKILL MILITARY ACADEMY, and Edward G. Halsey, Jr., William C. McConnell, H. Tilden Swan and Frank W. Lovejoy,

individually and as Trustees of Peekskill Military Academy,

and Howard Moore, Appellants.

Peter P. GEORGE, Respondent, v. PEEKSKILL MILITARY ACADEMY, and Edward G. Halsey, Jr., William C. McConnell, H. Tilden Swan and Frank W. Lovejoy,

individually and as Trustees of Peekskill Military Academy,

and Howard Moore, Appellants.

Robert RYAN, Respondent, v. PEEKSKILL MILITARY ACADEMY, and Edward G. Halsey, Jr., William C. McConnell, H. Tilden Swan and Frank W. Lovejoy,

individually and as Trustees of Peekskill Military Academy,

and Howard Moore, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 9, 1956.

Myle J. Holley, New York City, for appellants.

Michael F. Geraghty, Gloversville, for respondents.

Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, MURPHY, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In three separate but similar actions by three separate persons to recover damages for libel, the appeals are from orders insofar as they deny a motion in each action to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency.

Orders, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements.

Whether or not the matter stated in the letter addressed to the parents of the cadets at the appellant school is privileged is immaterial on the motions to dismiss the complaints for insufficiency. Privilege is a matter of defense to be pleaded and proved. Ostrowe v. Lee, 256 N.Y. 36, 41, 175 N.E. 505, 506; Kennedy v. James Butler, Inc., 245 N.Y. 204, 207, 156 N.E.666, 667.