Smith v. Helbraun
| Decision Date | 24 June 1964 |
| Parties | Herbert B. SMITH, Respondent, v. Henry HELBRAUN, Robert Poritsky, Clarence Weiant and Otto Alan Wirsig, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Spencer & Tunstead, New York City, for appellant; Edgar A. B. Spencer, New York City, of counsel.
Charles B. McGroddy, Jr., New York City, for respondent.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and CHRIST, HILL, RABIN and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for libel, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 5, 1963, which, on granting a cross-motion by plaintiff addressed to the defendants' respective amended answers under the former Rules of Civil Practice (rules 90, 102, 103, 109): (1) dismissed as insufficient in law the defense of absolute privilege asserted in each such pleading; (2) permitted said defenses to remain as defenses of qualified privilege only; (3) struck out certain subdivisions and paragraphs in such pleadings; and (4) dismissed as insufficient in law the defense of justification asserted in each such pleading.
Order reversed without costs, cross motion denied, and complaint dismissed without costs.
Plaintiff, the former superintendent of schools of the City School District of the City of Peekskill, sues in this action to recover damages for libel. At the time of the publication of the alleged libel, the defendants were members of the Board of Education of the City School District. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was libeled by a resolution adopted by the defendants (as a majority of the members of the Board of Education) and published in the minutes of the Board; and that in its preamble the resolution stated inter alia, concerning the plaintiff, that: 'Whereas the Board of Education of the City of Peekskill feels that greater progress can be made in solving the educational problems of the district under new leadership and, Whereas in the opinion of this Board of Education, the presence of Dr. Herbert B. Smith in the schools of this district is detrimental to the best interests of the school district and to the education of the children therein.' In the resolution's declaratory clause, the Board resolved that the plaintiff be placed on indefinite leave of absence and that he be relieved of all duties in connection with the school system, but directed that his salary be continued to be paid to him during the balance of his term as superintendent of schools.
The members of the Board of Education of a city school district have wide executive and administrative powers in the management and control of the educational affairs and interests within its charge (Education Law, § 2 subds. 14 and 16; art. 51 [§ 2501 et seq.]), including the power to prescribe regulations and by-laws (Education Law, § 2503). In executing their duties, the members perform a state function of high importance to the people at large and within the city (Matter of Board of Educ. v. Wilson, 303 N.Y. 107, 113, 100 N.E.2d 159, 162; Matter of Divisich v. Marshall, 281 N.Y. 170, 173, 22 N.E.2d 327, 328; Matter of Jaffe v. Board of Educ., 240 App.Div. 402, 403, 270 N.Y.S. 190, 191; affd. 265 N.Y. 160, 192 N.E. 185). Hence, the defendants are clothed with an absolute privilege for what is said or written by them in discharging their responsibilities (Sheridan v. Crisona, 14 N.Y.2d 108, 112-113, 249 N.Y.S.2d 161, 163, 198 N.E.2d 359, 360). The absolute privilege to act in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stukuls v. State
...authority to administer all the schools within the jurisdiction of its school system (Education Law, § 2501 et seq.; Smith v. Helbraun, 21 A.D.2d 830, 251 N.Y.S.2d 533). By way of contrast, only a qualified privilege has been extended to the head of a New York State school for deaf mutes (H......
-
Board of Ed. of City of Buffalo v. Buffalo Council of Sup'rs and Administrators
...and that privilege, most significantly, is absolute (Lombardo v. Stoke, 18 N.Y.2d 394, 276 N.Y.S.2d 97, 222 N.E.2d 721; Smith v. Helbraun, 21 A.D.2d 830, 251 N.Y.S.2d 533). In Lombardo, supra, an allegedly libelous press statement, issued by the Board of Higher Education of the City of New ......
-
Kilcoin v. Wolansky
...of sufficient dimension to trigger an absolute privilege with regard to the performance of his responsibilities. (Cf. Smith v. Helbraun, 21 A.D.2d 830, 251 N.Y.S.2d 533.) Having so concluded, we are obliged to proceed further and examine whether the privilege should attach under the facts a......
-
Mink Hollow Development Corp. v. State
...which officials should be immunized, the key test is the nature and extent of the duties they perform. (Smith v. Helbraun, 21 A.D.2d 830, 831, 251 N.Y.S.2d 533, 535; see also Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra, 416 U.S. at 242--248, 94 S.Ct. 1683; Barr v. Matteo, supra, 360 U.S. at 573, 574, 79 S.Ct.......