Case ID: ad2d_29/html/0782-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Universal Oven Company Incorporated, Appellant, v. Richard H. Williams et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Richard H. Williams, Respondent, v. Robert W. Williams, Appellant, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 2.)
   In consolidated appeals, plaintiff in Action No. 1 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 12, 1967, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment; and defendant Robert W. Williams in Action No. 2 appeals from so much of an order of the same court dated August 21,1967 as, upon resettlement of a prior order, denied a motion, insofar as made by him, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order in Action No. 1 affirmed and order in Action No. 2 affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs’and disbursements in each appeal. No opinion. Christ, Rabin and Munder, JJ., concur; Beldoek, P. J., concurs in result, although he adheres to the views stated in the dissent in Williams v. Williams (27 A D 2d 550). Hopkins, J., concurs in the affirmance of the order in Action No. 1 and concurs in result in the affirmance as to the order in Action No. 2, with the following memorandum: I am constrained under the authority of Williams v. Williams (27 A D 2d 550) to sustain the validity of the complaint, though I adhere to the views stated in the dissent therein. In addition, I am of the opinion that actual malice (as distinguished from implied malice) was not sufficiently shown to justify a submission of that issue to the jury (cf. Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 7 N Y 2d 56, 64; Sheridan v. Crisona, 14 N Y 2d 108, 114; Gilberg v. Goffi, 21 A D 2d 517, affd. 15 N Y 2d 1023). Appellant Robert W. Williams, at the least, had a qualified privilege to transmit a copy of the complaint in Action No. 1 to persons with whom the plaintiff in that action dealt; and falsity alone would not render him liable (Loewinthan v. Le Vine, 299 N. Y. 372, 375). I see no evidence here of “ ‘ personal spite or ill will, or culpable recklessness or negligence ’ ”, which are the indicia of actual malice (Hoeppner v. Dunkirk Print. Co., 254 N. Y. 95, 106).