Shaw v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1980 |
| Citation | 74 A.D.2d 985,426 N.Y.S.2d 182 |
| Parties | David D. SHAW, Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Marvin M. David, New York City, for appellant.
McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams, Albany (Norman P. Fivel, Albany, of counsel), for respondents.
Before GREENBLOTT, J. P., and KANE, STALEY, MAIN and MIKOLL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term entered on July 17, 1979 in Rensselaer County, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Employed by defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) as a Terminal Trainmaster at Selkirk, New York, plaintiff was responsible for the classification and departure of trains leaving the Selkirk yard during his tour of duty. While he was on duty on the night of October 4, 1978 and the early morning of October 5, 1978, three United Parcel railroad cars were misdirected, with the result that, on October 13, 1978, defendant William Sparks, a Division Superintendent of Conrail, sent plaintiff a letter stating:
(Y)ou are hereby relieved from your position of Terminal Trainmaster at Selkirk, New York, due to the mishandling of United Parcel cars on Train TV-10 on your tour of duty October 4-5, 1978.
Copies of this letter were sent to various supervisory officials of Conrail, and subsequently, at plaintiff's request, a hearing was conducted by Conrail on October 23, 1978 to investigate the mishandling of the United Parcel cars. Following this hearing, Superintendent Sparks informed plaintiff by letter of October 30, 1978 that he was adhering to his earlier decision to relieve plaintiff from his position, and copies of this letter were sent to the same officials who had received copies of the letter of October 13, 1978.
Alleging that the statements contained in the two letters constituted libel per se, plaintiff thereafter commenced the present action against Conrail and Sparks. At Special Term the court concluded that the complaint was insufficient to allege a cause of action in libel or slander, however, and, accordingly, it dismissed the complaint. This appeal has ensued.
We hold that the order of Special Term should be affirmed. Even assuming arguendo that the statements in the two letters were not privileged, a highly doubtful proposition (see Stillman v. Ford, 22 N.Y.2d 48, 290 N.Y.S.2d 893, 238 N.E.2d 304; Burns v. Smith-Corona Marchant, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matherson v. Marchello
...trade or profession (see Lyons v. New Amer. Lib., 78 A.D.2d 723, 432 N.Y.S.2d 536, app. withdrawn 53 N.Y.2d 704; Shaw v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 74 A.D.2d 985, 426 N.Y.S.2d 182; Amelkin v. Commercial Trading Co., 23 A.D.2d 830, 259 N.Y.S.2d 396, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 500, 267 N.Y.S.2d 218, 214 N......
-
Aronson v. Wiersma
...as a legislative assistant is not libelous per se (see, Tufano v. Schwartz, 95 A.D.2d 852, 464 N.Y.S.2d 211; Shaw v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 74 A.D.2d 985, 426 N.Y.S.2d 182; Fink v. Horn Constr. Co., 58 A.D.2d 574, 395 N.Y.S.2d 113; Amelkin v. Commercial Trading Co., 23 A.D.2d 830, 259 N.Y......
-
Angel v. Levittown Union Free School Dist. No. 5
...constitute libel or slander per se (see, Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 N.Y.2d 592, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 483 N.E.2d 1138 Shaw v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 74 A.D.2d 985, 426 N.Y.S.2d 182; Tufano v. Schwartz, 95 A.D.2d 852, 464 N.Y.S.2d 211; Noble v. Creative Tech. Servs., 126 A.D.2d 611, 511 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Larson v. Albany Medical Center
...single instance exception because such charges did not suggest that plaintiffs were incompetent as nurses (see, Shaw v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 74 A.D.2d 985, 426 N.Y.S.2d 182). We note as well that plaintiffs also failed to plead special damages, seeking $500,000 in overall damages. A fai......