New York Court of Appeals, 1986

Pollnow v. Poughkeepsie Newspapers, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 18, 1986

67 N.Y.2d 778; 501 N.Y.S.2d 17; 492 N.E.2d 125; 12 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1910; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17534

Cases that cite this one

30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Post v. Regan (District Court, S.D. New York 1988)
Kamfar v. New World Restaurant Group, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2004)
Paula A. Konikoff v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America (2d Cir. 2000)
J & J Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Picarazzi (District Court, N.D. New York 1992)
McNally v. Yarnall (District Court, S.D. New York 1991)
Moraes v. White (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
Mayer v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1988)
Robinson v. City of Yonkers Police Department (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
Goldman v. Reddington (District Court, E.D. New York 2019)
Stone v. Bloomberg L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Siegel v. Commack School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Siegel v. Commack School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Pizzo v. Gent Uniform Rental Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Bello v. New England Fin. (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County 2004)
Lee v. City of Rochester (New York Supreme Court 1997)
Von Gerichten v. Long Island Advance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Gandino v. Pelion, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Love v. William Morrow & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
McGill v. Parker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Park v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski (N.Y. 1991)
McGuire v. Epstein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
McGuire v. Epstein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
King v. Tanner (New York Supreme Court 1989)
Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski (N.Y. 1989)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The certified question is answered in the affirmative.

Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that letters written by defendant Bartelemucci and printed in a newspaper published by defendant Poughkeepsie Newspapers, Inc. defamed the 17-year-old infant plaintiff by falsely accusing him of criminal conduct. The letters described his conduct and commented critically on actions of the police officials and courts responsible for handling the charges against him.

Poughkeepsie Newspapers, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and also for summary judgment. Its supporting papers contained affidavits by employees of the newspaper in which they alleged facts which they claimed established the accuracy of the statements published and the absence of any irresponsible conduct on their part in approving publication. Confronted with this submission, the burden rested upon plaintiffs to establish that the alleged defamatory statements were false (see, Fairley v Peekskill Star Corp., 83 AD2d 294, 297; Wilson v ScrippsHoward Broadcasting Co., 642 F2d 371; Prosser and Keeton, *780Torts § 116, at 839 et seq. [5th ed]). They failed to respond to the newspapers motion with evidence by the infant plaintiff, however, or anyone else having knowledge of the accuracy of the accusations but relied entirely on a verified complaint executed by the infant plaintiff’s mother. Although CPLR 105 (t) permits a verified pleading to be used as an affidavit, and thus this pleading was properly submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the infant’s mother did not have personal knowledge of the incident and her verified complaint was not sufficient to raise a question of fact on the issue of falsity. Accordingly, the newspaper’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted (see, Gaeta v New York News, 62 NY2d 340, 350-351; Karaduman v Newsday, Inc., 51 NY2d 531, 545).

Defendant Bartelemucci also moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action against her. The Appellate Division granted the motion in part and dismissed plaintiff’s first cause of action charging defendant Bartelemucci with negligence. It denied the motion as to the remaining causes of action, however, claiming that the complaint fairly stated claims against defendant Bartelemucci charging her with grossly irresponsible conduct. In challenging that ruling on this appeal, plaintiff concedes that under the circumstances of this case defendant Bartelemucci is charged with the same duty of care as the newspaper. Inasmuch as the newspaper was liable only for grossly irresponsible conduct (Gaeta v New York News, supra; Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 NY2d 196), plaintiffs’ first cause of action charging defendant Bartelemucci with ordinary negligence was properly dismissed.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Hancock, Jr., concur in memorandum; Judge Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.