# Lombardo v. Stoke

> New York Court of Appeals · November 29, 1966 · 18 N.Y.2d 394

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5522996

## Case

- **Full name:** Josef V. Lombardo v. Harold W. Stoke
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 29, 1966
- **Citations:** 18 N.Y.2d 394; 276 N.Y.S.2d 97; 222 N.E.2d 721; 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 966
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Keating
- **Judges:** Bergan, Burke, Desmond, Fuld, Keating, Scileppi, Voorhis
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5522996

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the members of the state Board of Higher Education are protected by absolute privilege when perform-, ing their duties
- concluding that the members of the state Board of Higher Education are protected by absolute privilege when performing their duties

## Opinion text

Keating, J.
(concurring). The doctrine of absolute privilege should be sparingly extended. If this were a case of first impression, I would go no farther than holding that the statements in question were qualifiedly privileged. Incidentally I do not believe that the record supports a finding of actual malice.
Feeling, however, bound by our decision in Sheridan v. Crisona (14 N Y 2d 108), I am constrained to agree with the majority that the rationale of that case dictates an affirmance.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5522996. Public record. Not legal advice.