# Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.

> New York Court of Appeals · July 14, 1977 · 42 N.Y.2d 369

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5531121

## Case

- **Full name:** Dominic S. Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 14, 1977
- **Citations:** 42 N.Y.2d 369; 397 N.Y.S.2d 943; 366 N.E.2d 1299; 2 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2169; 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2214
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Breitel
- **Judges:** Breitel, Fuchsberg, Gabrielli, Jasen
- **Cited by:** 380 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/5531121

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that defamatory per se statements in any “written or 31 No. 22-558-cv printed article” are actionable without alleging special damages (internal quotation marks omitted)
- applying Karaduman and Weiner v. Doubleday & Co., 74 N.Y.2d 586, 550 N.Y.S.2d 251, 549 N.E.2d 453 (1989
- applying Karaduman and Weiner v. Doubleday & Co., 74 N.Y.2d 586, 550 N.Y.S.2d 251, 549 N.E.2d 453 (1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 930, 110 S.Ct. 2168, 109 L.Ed.2d 498 (1990)
- acknowledging the Restatement of Torts 2d § 582 in conflict with its holding that a plaintiff has the burden to prove a defamatory statement made about a public figure is false

## Opinion text

Chief Judge Breitel (concurring).
I concur in result and subscribe to the opinion of Judge Jasen. I do so however on the constraint of the controlling Supreme Court cases which at this time place undue burdens of proof on the defamed, whether public officials or private persons injected into the arena of public interest. For an illustration, I find it virtually impossible to bear the burden of proving that one is not "corrupt” or "probably corrupt”. Moreover, ordinarily, the test of clear and convincing evidence of malice would be one addressed as an evidence-weighing standard for fact finders to follow rather than a standard applied as a matter of law on summary judgment. Yet the present state of the law as declared by the Supreme Court makes necessary the implications and analysis cogently drawn by Judge Jasen. Consequently, I vote to reverse and grant summary judgment in accordance with the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5531121. Public record. Not legal advice.