1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 175 N.J.
  5. 175 N.J. Super. 418 (1980)
 

DURSKI v. CHANELES

175 N.J. Super. 418 (1980)

419 A.2d 1134

RAYMOND DURSKI ET UX., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. SOL CHANELES ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. JOSEPH DRAGOTTA ET UX., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. SOL CHANELES ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. JAMES HOLOVACKO ET UX., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. SOL CHANELES ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. ROBERT KELLY ET UX., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. SOL CHANELES ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. ANTHONY TARALLO ET UX., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. SOL CHANELES ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided June 18, 1980.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Edward A. Kondracki argued the cause for appellants (Davis & Reberkenny, attorneys).

William H. Gazi argued the cause for respondents (Foley & Gazi, attorneys).

Before Judges ALLCORN, MORGAN and FRANCIS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by ALLCORN, P.J.A.D.

Without regard to the issue of whether or not the magazine article was in fact defamatory, plaintiffs have completely failed to produce any proof by way of affidavit, certification or otherwise from which may be reasonably inferred "knowledge of the [asserted] falsity or reckless disregard of truth or falsity" on the part of any one or more of the defendants. Washinton Post v. Keogh,

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases