Twenty-Five East 40th Street Restaurant Corporation v. Forbes, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | TWENTY-FIVE |
| Citation | 282 N.E.2d 118,30 N.Y.2d 595,331 N.Y.S.2d 29 |
| Parties | , 282 N.E.2d 118 EAST 40TH STREET RESTAURANT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. FORBES, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 37 A.D.2d 546, 322 N.Y.S.2d 408.
Charney & White, New York City (Leon H. Charney, Harry T. Kirp, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Shearman & Sterling, New York City (John A. Wilson, Michale J. DeSantis, Lawrence G. Golde, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
Restaurant owner brought an action against publisher of restaurant guide for libel. The Supreme Court, New York County, Andrew R. Tyler, J., entered an order denying the publisher's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the publisher appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed. It held that the critical review of restaurant which was motivated by a desire to protect the public through the disclosure of highly important matter affecting public interest was privileged under the First Amendment and did not authorize recovery for libel in absence of pleading or showing of actual malice. The restaurant owner appealed.
In the Court of Appeal the restaurant owner contended that the article impeached the knowledge, skill and integrity of restaurant and was libelous per se, that the operation of restaurant did not possess such public interest as to bring publisher within constitutionally protected area of free expression and that the libel was malicious. The publisher contended that the restaurant review was of interest to public and was privileged under the First Amendment and that review was published without actual malice, without knowledge of falsehood and without reckless disregard of the truth.
Order affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff has failed to state any evidentiary facts, warranting a trial, to support its allegation that the defendant was motivated by malice in publishing its critique of the plaintiff's restaurant. (See, e.g., Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 91 S.Ct. 1811, 29 L.Ed.2d 296; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686; Frink v. McEldowney, 29 N.Y.2d 720, 325 N.Y.S.2d 755, 275 N.E.2d 337; Kent v. City of Buffalo, 29 N.Y.2d 818, 327 N.Y.S.2d 653, 277 N.E.2d 669.)
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc 8212 617
...Congressman for an investigation into the death of schoolchildren in a bus accident); Twenty-Five East 40th Street Restaurant Corp. v. Forbes, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 595, 331 N.Y.S.2d 29, 282 N.E.2d 118 (1972) (magazine article concerning a restaurant's food); Kent v. City of Buffalo, 29 N.Y.2d 81......
-
Adams v. Frontier Broadcasting Co.
...26 L.Ed.2d 63 (1970), reh. den. 399 U.S. 917, 90 S.Ct. 2196, 26 L.Ed.2d 576 (1970); Twenty-Five East 40th Street Restaurant Corporation v. Forbes, 30 N.Y.2d 595, 331 N.Y.S.2d 29, 282 N.E.2d 118 (1972); Foster v. Laredo Newspapers, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 530 S.W.2d 611 (1975); Demman v. Star Br......
-
Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Pub. Co., Inc.
...Azur S.A., 759 F.2d 219 (2d Cir.1985); Mashburn v. Collin, 355 So.2d 879 (La.1977); Twenty-five East 40th St. Restaurant Corp. v. Forbes, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 595, 282 N.E.2d 118, 331 N.Y.S.2d 29 (1972); Wilson v. Sun Publishing Co., 85 Wash. 503, 148 P. 774 (1915); cf. Mayfair Farms, Inc. v. So......
-
Trails West, Inc. v. Wolff
...S.Ct. 1811, 1820, 29 L.Ed.2d 296, Supra); the quality of food in the plaintiff's restaurant (Twenty-Five East 40th St. Rest. Corp. v. Forbes, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 595, 331 N.Y.S.2d 29, 282 N.E.2d 118); a dispute about a garbage disposal site (Frink v. McEldowney, 29 N.Y.2d 720, 325 N.Y.S.2d 755,......