Case Name: Roman Gurtler, Appellant, v. Union Parts Manufacturing Co., Inc., Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1956-03-15
Citations: 1 N.Y.2d 5
Docket Number: 
Parties: Roman Gurtler, Appellant, v. Union Parts Manufacturing Co., Inc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 5–8

Head Matter:
Roman Gurtler, Appellant, v. Union Parts Manufacturing Co., Inc., Respondent.
Argued February 7, 1956;
decided March 15, 1956.
William Canton and Robert Leon Horn for appellant.
I. A false charge that a person is a communist imputes a punishable crime and is slanderous per se. (Von Gerichten v. Seitz, 94 App. Div. 130; Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494; Carlson v. London, 342 U. S. 524; Matter of Lithuanian Workers Literature Soc., 196 App. Div. 262; Matter of People of State of New York [International Workers Order], 280 App. Div. 517; Garriga v. Richfield, 174 Misc. 315; Krumholz v. Raffer, 195 Misc. 788.) II. The charge that plaintiff was a communist is slanderous per se in that it tended to injure him in his trade, occupation, business or profession. (Sanderson v. Caldwell, 45 N. Y. 398; Moore v. Francis, 121 N. Y. 199; Marlin Fire Arms Co. v. Shields, 171 N. Y. 384; Lumley v. Gye, 2 El. & Bl. 216; Kraushaar v. La Vin, 181 Misc. 508; Lendino v. Fiorenza, 203 Misc. 115; Gideon v. Dwyer, 87 Hun 246; Stephens v. Pattou, 208 App. Div. 63; Hollingsworth v. Spectator Co., 49 App. Div. 16; Remington v. Bentley, 88 F. Supp. 166.) III. A pleading challenged for legal insufficiency must be construed broadly and liberally in favor of its sufficiency. (Wainwright & Page v. Burr & McAuley, 272 N. Y. 130; Condon v. Associated Hosp. Service of N. Y., 287 N. Y. 411; Dyer v. Broadway Central Bank, 252 N. Y. 430; Locke v. Pembroke, 280 N. Y. 430; Hart v. Hart, 274 App. Div. 1036; Drydock Knitting Mills v. Queens Mach. Corp., 254 App. Div. 568; Nunnally v. Tribune Assn., 111 App. Div. 485; Krumholz v. Raffer, 195 Misc. 788.) IV. In any event, plaintiff was entitled to an opportunity to replead and amend his complaint. (Fitzgerald v. Title Guar. & Trust Co., 290 N. Y. 376; Al Raschid v. News Syndicate Co., 265 N. Y. 1; Fulton Fire Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 37 N. Y. 648; O'Connor v. Virginia Passenger & Power Co., 184 N. Y. 46; Avey v. Town of Brant, 263 N. Y. 320; Eichhammer v. Parsons, 273 N. Y. 208; Cohen v. City Co. of N. Y., 283 N. Y. 112; Steinert v. Title Guar. & Trust Co., 258 App. Div. 927, 283 N. Y. 636; Didier v. Macfadden Publications, 299 N. Y. 49.)
Charles H. Tuttle and Thomas A. Shaw, Jr., for respondent.
I. The complaint fails to state a slander actionable per se. The mere words “ you are a communist ” are not alleged to have been directed at plaintiff’s conduct of his profession and to have been spoken of him in his professional capacity. (Keefe v. O'Brien, 203 Misc. 113; Gross v. Mallamud, 200 Misc. 5; Krumholz v. Raffer, 195 Misc. 788; Ostrowe v. Lee, 256 N. Y. 36; Hartmann v. Winchell, 296 N. Y. 296; Kinney v. Nash, 3 N. Y. 177; Ireland v. McGarvish, 1 Sanf. 155; Oakley v. Farrington, 1 Johns. Cas. 129; Hyatt v. Salisbury, 207 Misc. 785; Purdy v. Rochester Print. Co., 96 N. Y. 372.) II. Appellant’s effort, by stressing the innuendoes, to apply the words to plaintiff in his professional capacity is inadmissible. Innuendo cannot enlarge or add to the words claimed to be slanderous per se. (Hays v. American Defense Soc., 252 N. Y. 266; O'Connell v. Press Pub. Co., 214 N. Y. 352; Denis v. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 279 App. Div. 78, 303 N. Y. 985; Rager v. McCloskey, 305 N. Y. 75.) III. Nor did the alleged statement “ you are a communist ” charge plaintiff with a crime punishable by imprisonment. (United States v. Flynn, 216 F. 2d 354, 348 U. S. 909; United States v. Foster, 9 F. R. D. 367; Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494; United States v. Schneiderman, 106 F. Supp. 906; Frankfeld v. United States, 198 F. 2d 679, 344 U. S. 922; Garriga v. Richfield, 174 Misc. 315; Matter of Stanton v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 190 Misc. 1012; Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S. 524; Von Gerichten v. Seitz, 94 App. Div. 130; People v. Gitlow, 234 N. Y. 132, 268 U. S. 652.) IV. Even in recent years, the courts have held that to characterize one verbally as “ a communist ” is not actionable slander. (Keefe v. O'Brien, 203 Misc. 113; Hartmann v. Winchell, 296 N. Y. 296; Gross v. Mallamud, 200 Misc. 5; Krumhols v. Raffer, 195 Misc. 788; Remington v. Bentley, 88 F. Supp. 166.) V. Furthermore, no case is stated against defendant corporation merely because a man who was its president uttered the words: “ You are a communist.” There is no factual allegation that the utterance was within his authorization as president and in the course of defendant’s work. (Fiocco v. Carver, 234 N. Y. 219; Sauter v. New York Tribune, 305 N. Y. 422; Oneta v. Tocci Co., 271 App. Div. 681, 297 N. Y. 629; O'Brien v. Bates Corp., 211 App. Div. 743; Ogust v. Institute for Public Service, 216 App. Div. 118; Kalmanash v. Smith, 291 N. Y. 142; Kaufman v. Farah, 276 App. Div. 178; 303 N. Y. 819; Greenebaum v. Lilienthal & Co., 280 App. Div. 132.) VI. Appellant’s request for leave to plead over should not be granted. This request is a mere afterthought, and nothing is suggested to give it substance.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It has long been settled that what is defama-
tory— that is, actionable without allegation or proof of special damage—-when written may be held not actionable per se if spoken. (See Hartmann v. Winchell, 296 N. Y. 296, 298; Kleeberg v. Sipser, 265 N. Y, 87, 91; Moore v. Francis, 121 N. Y. 199, 204; Kinney v. Nash, 3 N. Y. 177, 178; Oakley v. Farrington, 1 Johns. Cas. 129, 130.) Having applicable principles in mind, it is clear that the words attributed to defendant corporation's president are not slanderous per se. Consequently, absent a sufficient allegation of special damage, the complaint fails to state a cause of action and was properly dismissed by the Appellate Division (285 App. Div. 643). However, in view of plaintiff's assertion, made through counsel, that he has suffered special damages, he should be permitted to amend his complaint to include an allegation to that effect. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 584; see. Didier v. Macfadden Publications, 299 N. Y. 49, 53; Al Raschid v. News Syndicate Co., 265 N. Y. 1, 5.)
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within twenty days.
Conway, Ch. J., Desmond, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke, JJ., concur; Dye, J., taking no part.
Judgment affirmed, etc.