# Hoo v. forest Pharmaceuticals Inc.

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · March 28, 1996 · 225 A.D.2d 504

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5999456

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Joseph Hoo v. Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Alexander Frocht
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** March 28, 1996
- **Citations:** 225 A.D.2d 504; 639 N.Y.2d 693; 639 N.Y.S.2d 693; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3261
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 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/5999456

## Opinion text

There should be preaction disclosure to aid in bringing an action including a claim for defamation, petitioner having alleged facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case therefor except for the requirement of CPLR 3016 (a) that the particular words complained of be set forth, as to which the documents sought would clearly be helpful. The opposition to the motion failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, either the existence of a qualified privilege or the absence of malice. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5999456. Public record. Not legal advice.