The case involved two libel lawsuits brought by Robert Hinsdale and Concetta Kay Rieber against a newspaper for publishing a false announcement of their engagement to marry, despite both being married to other people at the time. The lower courts had dismissed the complaints, finding the article was not libelous per se and requiring special damages to be pleaded. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the false announcement of an engagement between two married individuals was libelous per se because it imputed a violation of marital norms and tended to expose the plaintiffs to public disgrace and ridicule, allowing the suits to proceed without proof of special damages by pleading extrinsic facts about their marital status.
The case involved a 1962 demand loan of $150,000 at 10% interest from plaintiff Leumi Financial Corp. to defendant Richter, secured by corporate stock collateral valued at about 40% of the loan amount, with personal guarantees from the other defendants. After partial repayment, the unpaid principal and interest led to a summary judgment action under CPLR 3213. Defendants argued the loan was usurious, claiming it was intended as a one-year term despite the written "On Demand" language and that the collateral was inadequate. The court held that the transaction qualified for exemption from usury limits under former General Business Law § 379 as a demand advance on qualifying securities, and that parol evidence was inadmissible to contradict the note's clear terms. It affirmed summary judgment for the unpaid principal plus interest (reduced to 6% after default), finding no triable issues.
This case concerned whether an order from Special Term in an Article 78 proceeding was a final judgment appealable as of right to the Appellate Division or instead an intermediate order requiring leave to appeal. The underlying dispute involved Mid-Island Hospital's challenge to the State Social Welfare Commissioner's determination of reimbursement rates paid by Associated Hospital Service, specifically whether a sublease rental amount could be included as a reimbursable expense given questions of affiliation and compliance with licensing laws. Special Term had twice annulled the Commissioner's decisions and remanded with directions to make findings consistent with the court's own conclusions on the rental inclusion and lack of improper affiliation. The Court of Appeals held that the second Special Term order qualified as a final judgment because it compelled the Commissioner to adopt particular findings and reach a predetermined result, rendering his remaining actions purely ministerial. Accordingly, the Appellate Division's dismissal of the appeal was reversed and the matter remanded for consideration of the appeal on the merits.
The case concerned a hospital director's request to inspect corporate records regarding alleged improper medical experiments performed on patients without their informed consent. The Court of Appeals held that the director was entitled as a matter of law to examine the records to fulfill his oversight duties, reversing the lower court's denial of access. The majority reasoned that directors of membership corporations have both the right and obligation to stay informed about institutional policies and activities, and that any patient confidentiality concerns could be addressed through court-ordered protections such as redacting names. The decision emphasized that the possibility of corporate liability and the director's responsibilities justified the inspection despite ongoing external investigations and new consent rules.
This case concerned a challenge to a $500 arbitration award issued to claimant Rita Torano under a Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) policy for damages from a hit-and-run accident. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order upholding the award. The majority relied on the general rule that arbitration awards are not reviewable for errors of law or fact. Dissenting opinions contended that the award's gross inadequacy demonstrated arbitrator partiality and that MVAIC awards must follow statutory and contractual legal measures of damages rather than arbitrator discretion.
This case involved a negligence claim brought by the guardian of Rosa Hill, a mentally incompetent pedestrian struck by a bus operated by Fifth Avenue Coach Lines. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision and dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiff failed as a matter of law to establish actionable negligence by the bus driver. The majority reasoned that the cited precedents were inapposite because they involved undisputed evidence that the driver failed to see a pedestrian in plain view, whereas here no such breach was shown. A dissent argued that a prima facie case existed based on the driver's failure to slow down or take precautions after seeing the plaintiff in a dangerous position, supported by precedents allowing recovery under similar facts or last clear chance doctrine.