Robart v. Post-Standard
| Citation | 425 N.Y.S.2d 891,74 A.D.2d 963 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | A,POST-STANDAR |
| Parties | , 6 Media L. Rep. 1058 Hazel ROBART, Respondent, v.ppellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Bond, Schoeneck & King, Syracuse (S. Paul Battaglia, Syracuse, of counsel), for appellant.
O'Connell & Wolfe, Plattsburgh (Michael J. Howley, Plattsburgh, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SWEENEY, J. P., and KANE, STALEY, CASEY and HERLIHY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered July 20, 1979 in Clinton County, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Under the headline "three charged", an article in defendant's newspaper named, in its first paragraph, two youths who were arrested, pleaded guilty and were fined $100 each for unlawful possession of marijuana. In the following paragraph, the article stated that .
It is now undisputed that the plaintiff was not arrested by village police and charged with driving an uninsured vehicle. She was issued a ticket (appearance ticket (CPL 150.10)) by a State Police officer for failure to have a New York State Insurance Identification card in her possession (15 NYCRR 32.10(b) (5), (6)) and required to appear in the Town Court on November 16, 1977, where formal charges would then be made (see People v. Scott, 3 N.Y.2d 148, 164 N.Y.S.2d 707, 143 N.E.2d 901). The plaintiff's failure to produce the ID card at the request of the officer is presumptive evidence only of uninsured operation, for which the plaintiff may be given a summons (15 NYCRR 32.10(b) (7)). When the plaintiff appeared before the Town Justice, she displayed proof of insurance coverage and the charge was never brought against her, and the ticket that had been issued was dismissed by the justice presiding.
The issuance of the ticket was not an arrest (Farkas v. State of New York, 96 Misc.2d 784, 409 N.Y.S.2d 696), and the plaintiff was never formally charged with the crime, which is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $1,000 and one year in jail plus a civil penalty of $300 (Vehicle & Traffic Law, § 319, subd. (1)). To falsely accuse the plaintiff of such arrest and charge is untrue and constitutes libel per se (Martin v. Orange County Pub., 49 Misc.2d 84, 266 N.Y.S.2d 875, affd. 25 A.D.2d 471, 266...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. New York Times Co.
...Chapadeau v. Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 N.Y.2d 196, 379 N.Y.S.2d 61, 341 N.E.2d 569 (Ct.App.1975); see also Robart v. Post-Standard, 74 A.D.2d 963, 425 N.Y.S.2d 891 (3d Dept.1980), aff'd, 52 N.Y.2d 843, 437 N.Y.S.2d 71, 418 N.E.2d 664 (Ct.App.1981); Grobe v. Three Village Herald, 69 A.D.2d......
-
Lee v. City of Rochester
...Captain Chechak's account. Robart v. Post-Standard, 52 N.Y.2d 843, 845, 437 N.Y.S.2d 71, 418 N.E.2d 664 (1981), affg., 74 A.D.2d 963, 425 N.Y.S.2d 891 (3rd Dept.1980) ("the reporter would have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information supplied [by a State Trooper public information......
-
Freeze Right Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Services, Inc. v. City of New York
...complaint, the court held that reliance on such information did not constitute gross irresponsibility. Similarly, in Robart v. Post-Standard, 74 A.D.2d 963, 425 N.Y.S.2d 891, aff'd 52 N.Y.2d 843, 437 N.Y.S.2d 71, 418 N.E.2d 664, a newspaper, relying solely on inaccurate information provided......
-
Hogan v. Herald Co.
...determine the truth of Roehm's claim of arrest, persuade us that defendants' conduct should be judged by a jury (cf. Robart v. Post Standard, 74 A.D.2d 963, 425 N.Y.S.2d 891, affd. 52 N.Y.2d 843, 437 N.Y.S.2d 71, 418 N.E.2d 664; Grobe v. Three Vil. Herald, 69 A.D.2d 175, 420 N.Y.S.2d 3, aff......