Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
44 New York opinions name it 9 courts 1912–2025 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Firth v. State of NYgreen2 sentences2025Under certain circumstances, republication may be an exception to the single publication rule (see Firth v State of New York, 98 NY2d 365, 371 [2002]; Martin v Daily News L.P., 121 AD3d 90, 103-104 [1st Dept 2014]). 2024This argument is unavailing as the single publication rule applies to plaintiff's libel action, which was commenced in December 2021, well beyond the one-year limitations period provided in CPLR 215(3) ( see Firth v State of New York , 98 NY2d 365, 369 [2002]; Biro v CondÉ Nast , 171 AD3d 463 [1st Dept 2019]; Martin v Daily News L.P ., 121 AD3d 90, 103 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 908 [2014]). | 6 | 13 |
Rinaldi v. Viking Penguin, Inc.green2 sentences2014An exception to the single publication rule has been applied when the following factors are present: “the subsequent publication is intended to and actually reaches a new audience,” “the second publication is made on an occasion distinct from the initial one,” “the republished statement has been modified in form or in content,” and “the defendant has control over the decision to republish” (see Hoesten v Best, 34 AD3d at 150-151 ). *104 Thus, for example, repetition of a defamatory statement in a later edition of a book, magazine or newspaper may give rise to a new cause of action (Rinaldi v V 2008Republication occurs “upon a separate aggregate publication from the original, on a different occasion, which is not merely ‘a delayed circulation of the original edition.’ ” (Firth v State of New York, 98 NY2d at 371 [citation omitted].) As the Court of Appeals has explained, the justification for this exception to the single publication rule is that “the subsequent publication is intended to and actually reaches a new audience.” (Id. at 371; see also Rinaldi v Viking Penguin, 52 NY2d 422, 433-435 [1981].) Thus, where the material at issue is republished in a new format intended to reach a ne | 6 | 9 |
Gregoire v. G. P. Putnam's Sonsgreen2 sentences2007In Gregoire v Putnam’s Sons, this Court formulated the single publication rule, which states that a cause of action for defamation accrues on the date the offending material is first published ( 298 NY 119, 125-126 [1948]). 2004The Court of Appeals in 1948 adopted the single publication rule holding that “the publication of a defamatory statement in a single issue of a newspaper, or a single issue of a magazine, although such publication consists of thousands of copies widely distributed, is, in legal effect, one publication which gives rise to one cause of action and that the applicable Statute of Limitation[s] runs from the date of that publication” (Gregoire v Putnam’s Sons, 298 NY 119, 123 [1948]). | 4 | 7 |
Barklee Realty Co. v. Patakigreen2 sentences2025In Small Step , however, there was not even late compliance with the publication requirement. ( see Small Step's Memo of Law at 2014 WL 12968136). [FN1] The only case cited in Small Step is Barklee Realty Co., LLC. v Pataki , (309 AD2d 310 [1st Dept 2003]). 2025Indeed, in Barklee , the court notes that § 206, "which conditions the maintenance of an action or special proceeding on compliance with the publication requirement, provides an incentive to ensure that the required disclosure will be made." ( see 309 AD2d at 316 [emphasis added). | 3 | 3 |
Martin v. Daily News L.P.green2 sentences2025Under certain circumstances, republication may be an exception to the single publication rule (see Firth v State of New York, 98 NY2d 365, 371 [2002]; Martin v Daily News L.P., 121 AD3d 90, 103-104 [1st Dept 2014]). 2024This argument is unavailing as the single publication rule applies to plaintiff's libel action, which was commenced in December 2021, well beyond the one-year limitations period provided in CPLR 215(3) ( see Firth v State of New York , 98 NY2d 365, 369 [2002]; Biro v CondÉ Nast , 171 AD3d 463 [1st Dept 2019]; Martin v Daily News L.P ., 121 AD3d 90, 103 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 908 [2014]). | 3 | 3 |
In Re the Probate of a Paper Propounded as the Last Will & Testament of Turellgreen2 sentences2024In addition, compliance with the publication requirement may be inferred from the conduct of the testator during the execution ceremony, and here, the witnesses testified that they discussed the terms of the will with the testator and it was clear from the circumstances that the testator was there to execute her will (see Matter of Turell, 166 NY 330, 337 [1901] ["In all cases, a substantial compliance will be sufficient and no particular form of words is required, or is necessary, to effect publication"]; Matter of Pirozzi, 238 AD2d 833 [3d Dept 1997] [Publication can be through words or acti 2007FALK, the above named testatrix, declared to each of us that the foregoing instrument is her last will, and that she acknowledged to each of us that her signature was affixed thereto by her . . . .” The publication requirement mandates that decedent make her intention known that the document is to serve as her will, and absent such declaration, the instrument should not be admitted to probate (EPTL 3-2.1 [a] [3]; Matter of Pirozzi, 238 AD2d at 834 ; Matter of Griffin, 81 AD2d 735 [1981], Iv denied 54 NY2d 602 [1981]). “ ‘[Substantial compliance will be sufficient and no particular form of word | 3 | 3 |
In re the Estate of Robertsgreen2 sentences2010Although due execution may be shown by evidence other than the testimony of the attesting witnesses, “[i]t cannot however be presumed in opposition to positive testimony, merely upon the ground that the attestation clause is in due form and states that all things were done which are required to be done to make the instrument valid as a will” (Lewis, 11 NY at 224 ; see also Matter of Pirozzi, 238 AD2d 833, 834 [1997], quoting Matter of Roberts, 215 AD2d 666 [1995] [“Publication can be through words or actions, but something must occur to show that there had been ‘a meeting of the minds between 2007FALK, the above named testatrix, declared to each of us that the foregoing instrument is her last will, and that she acknowledged to each of us that her signature was affixed thereto by her . . . .” The publication requirement mandates that decedent make her intention known that the document is to serve as her will, and absent such declaration, the instrument should not be admitted to probate (EPTL 3-2.1 [a] [3]; Matter of Pirozzi, 238 AD2d at 834 ; Matter of Griffin, 81 AD2d 735 [1981], Iv denied 54 NY2d 602 [1981]). “ ‘[Substantial compliance will be sufficient and no particular form of word | 3 | 3 |
In re the Estate of Pirozzigreen2 sentences2024In addition, compliance with the publication requirement may be inferred from the conduct of the testator during the execution ceremony, and here, the witnesses testified that they discussed the terms of the will with the testator and it was clear from the circumstances that the testator was there to execute her will (see Matter of Turell, 166 NY 330, 337 [1901] ["In all cases, a substantial compliance will be sufficient and no particular form of words is required, or is necessary, to effect publication"]; Matter of Pirozzi, 238 AD2d 833 [3d Dept 1997] [Publication can be through words or acti 2007FALK, the above named testatrix, declared to each of us that the foregoing instrument is her last will, and that she acknowledged to each of us that her signature was affixed thereto by her . . . .” The publication requirement mandates that decedent make her intention known that the document is to serve as her will, and absent such declaration, the instrument should not be admitted to probate (EPTL 3-2.1 [a] [3]; Matter of Pirozzi, 238 AD2d at 834 ; Matter of Griffin, 81 AD2d 735 [1981], Iv denied 54 NY2d 602 [1981]). “ ‘[Substantial compliance will be sufficient and no particular form of word | 2 | 3 |
Costanza v. Seinfeldgreen2 sentences2022Under the single publication rule, the statute of limitations began to run in 2014, when "the offending material [was] first published," and plaintiff did not file this lawsuit until 2019 ( Nussenzweig v diCorcia , 9 NY3d 184, 188 [2007]; see also Costanza v Seinfeld , 279 AD2d 255, 255-256 [1st Dept 2001]). 2007We further note that this Department adheres to the single publication rule (Costanza, 279 AD2d at 255-256 ) and thus the statute began to run when plaintiff’s photograph was first exhibited on September 6, 2001 and expired one year later, some three years prior to the commencement of this action. | 2 | 3 |
Rare 1 Corp. v. Moshe Zwiebel Diamond Corp.green2 sentences2019We reject plaintiff's argument, based on a 20-year-old, unreported Tennessee case applying Tennessee law ( Swafford v Memphis Individual Practice Assn. , 1998 WL 281935 , 1998 Tenn App LEXIS 361 [Ct App, June 2, 1998]), that the NPDB website is not subject to the single publication rule ( see Firth v State of New York , 98 NY2d 365 [2002]; Rare 1 Corp. v Moshe Zwiebel Diamond Corp. , 13 Misc 3d 279, 282 [Sup Ct, NY County 2006]). 2008(See Rare 1 Corp. v Moshe Zwiebel Diamond Corp., 13 Misc 3d 279, 281 [Sup Ct, NY County 2006].) Here, in opposing the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiff effectively concedes that his claim is time-barred under the single publication rule with respect to the defendant’s installation of his photograph at its various clubs since all of the installations at the clubs have been in the same format as initially used at a TSI club soon after the picture was taken in 1999. | 2 | 2 |
Weintraub v. Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim, & Ballongreen1 sentence2025Notably, the publication requirement is not satisfied where a plaintiff voluntarily publishes the alleged defamatory words to a third party ( see Weintraub v Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim, & Ballon , 172 AD2d 254, 254-255 [1st Dept 1991]; see also Fedrizzi v Washingtonville Cent. | 1 | 1 |
Fedrizzi v. Washingtonville Central School Districtgreen1 sentence2025School Dist. , 204 AD2d 267, 268 [2d Dept 1994]). | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Proctor & Gamble Co.green1 sentence2024Richardson v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 209 A.D.3d 455,456 (1st Dept. 2022). 651816/2024 ESTATE OF BELLAABZUG ET AL vs. | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. McAfee, Inc.green1 sentence2020Plaintiff's position is inconsistent with the single publication rule since she, in effect, [*3]seeks to assert causes of action arising from both the initial publication and the continued publication of the article after she demanded a retraction ( see Firth v State , 98 NY2d 365 [2002]; see also Roberts v McAfee, Inc. , 660 F3d 1156 [9th Cir 2011]. | 1 | 1 |
Mañas v. VMS Associates, LLCgreen1 sentence2019The more recent statements are not actionable because plaintiff failed to set forth the "exact words" complained of ( see Gardner v Alexander Rent-A-Car , 28 AD2d 667 , 667 [1st Dept 1967]) and the "time, place and manner of the purported defamation" ( see Buxbaum v Castro , 104 AD3d 895 , 895 [2d Dept 2013], appeal dismissed 21 NY3d 1061 [2013]; Murphy v City of New York , 59 AD3d 301 [1st Dept 2009]; Manas v VMS Assoc., LLC , 53 AD3d 451, 454-455 [1st Dept 2008]; CPLR 3016[a]). | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Churchillgreen1 sentence2015NYU’s direct communications with plaintiff did not constitute a publication to any third party, and any communication by NYU to its public safety officers is protected by a qualified privilege (see Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 751 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
Dillon v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2015The complaint failed to set forth the particular words complained of or to satisfy the publication requirement in support of the claim for defamation per se (see CPLR 3016; Dillon v City of New York, 261 AD2d 34, 38 [1st Dept 1999]). | 1 | 1 |
| Lewis v. . Lewisgreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Calabrogreen1 sentence2010The legislature shall provide for the speedy publication of such rules and regulations by appropriate laws”]; People v Bremner, 51 Misc 2d 632, 633 [Ct Spec Sessions, Town of Elbridge, Onondaga County 1966] [“It is well established that the rules and'regulations of a department head to be effective and enforcible must be published”]; People v Calabro, 7 Misc 2d 732, 732-734 [Albany Recorder’s Ct 1957] [dismissing charge against motorist because rule premising offense had not been filed with the Secretary of State].) The publication requirement is simple and obvious: rules and regulations to wh | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bremnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| New York State Health Facilities Ass'n v. Axelrodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brody v. Village of Port Chestergreen | 1 | 1 |
| E.B. v. Liberation Publications, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Estate of Pilongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Karam v. First American Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vogel v. Stateyellow | 1 | 1 |
| In re Bucktengreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Estate of Leachgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Probate of the Will of Pulvermachergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bevis Industries, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Citigroup Inc. v. City Holding Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Cook v. . Connersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Seltzer v. Fieldsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| WFB Telecommunications, Inc. v. NYNEX Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Seltzer v. Fieldsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Backus v. Look, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Russo v. Huntington Town House, Inc.green2 sentences2007To the extent that Russo v Huntington Town House ( 184 AD2d 627 [1992]) may be read to hold that the statute of limitations in a privacy action runs from the last publication of a photograph, we decline to follow it. 2007Since our decision in Gregoire, New York appellate courts addressing the timeliness of statutory right of privacy claims have generally applied the single publication rule (see E.B. v Liberation Publs., 7 AD3d 566, 567 [2d Dept 2004], citing Castel v Sherlock Corp., 159 AD2d 233 [1st Dept 1990]; see also Costanza v Seinfeld, 279 AD2d 255, 255-256 [1st Dept 2001]; but see Russo v Huntington Town House, 184 AD2d 627, 628 [2d Dept 1992] [holding that the statute of limitations on Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 claims runs from the date of the most recent violations of the statute]). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Small Step Day Care, LLC v. Broadway Bushwick Builders, L.P.
green
2 sentences2025In 109 Equities LLC v Smit , (2022 WL 17589545 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2022], the court cited to § 206(a), and to Small Step Day Care, LLC v Broadway Bushwick Builders, L.P. , (137 AD3d 1102 [2d Dept 2016]), but did not grapple with what it means when something is "annulled." Similarly, the petitioner in Hull Unique Equities LLC v Boone , (83 Misc 3d 1297(A) [Civ Ct, Kings County 2024]), provided no proof of [late] compliance with the publication requirement and the court did not address the statute's use of "annulled." In One Stone Lending LLC v Alta Operations, LLC , (2020 WL 1077590 [Sup Ct, 2025In 109 Equities LLC v Smit , ( 2022 WL 17589545 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2022], the court cited to § 206(a), and to Small Step Day Care, LLC v Broadway Bushwick Builders, L.P. , ( 137 AD3d 1102 [2d Dept 2016]), but did not grapple with what it means when something is "annulled." Similarly, the petitioner in Hull Unique Equities LLC v Boone , ( 83 Misc 3d 1297(A) [Civ Ct, Kings County 2024]), provided no proof of [late] compliance with the publication requirement and the court did not address the statute's use of "annulled." In One Stone Lending LLC v Alta Operations, LLC , ( 2020 WL 1077590 [Sup | 3 | 2025–2025 |
Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia
green
2 sentences2022Under the single publication rule, the statute of limitations began to run in 2014, when "the offending material [was] first published," and plaintiff did not file this lawsuit until 2019 ( Nussenzweig v diCorcia , 9 NY3d 184, 188 [2007]; see also Costanza v Seinfeld , 279 AD2d 255, 255-256 [1st Dept 2001]). 2008(See Nussenzweig v diCorcia, 9 NY3d at 188 .) There is, however, an exception to the single publication rule. | 2 | 2008–2022 |
Ostrowe v. Lee
green
2 sentences2014In particular, in Ostrowe v Lee ( 256 NY 36 [1931]), Chief Judge Cardozo explained that where it is alleged that the defendant dictated a defamatory letter to his stenographer, who transcribed the notes, and the letter was then sent to the plaintiff, publication to a third party is sufficiently pleaded (see Hirschfeld v Institutional Inv., 208 AD2d 380 [1st Dept 1994]). 2014In particular, in Ostrowe v Lee ( 256 NY 36 [1931]), Chief Judge Cardozo explained that where it is alleged that the defendant dictated a defamatory letter to his stenographer, who transcribed the notes, and the letter was then sent to the plaintiff, publication to a third party is sufficiently pleaded (see Hirschfeld v Institutional Inv., 208 AD2d 380 [1st Dept 1994]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Hirschfeld v. Institutional Investor, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014In particular, in Ostrowe v Lee ( 256 NY 36 [1931]), Chief Judge Cardozo explained that where it is alleged that the defendant dictated a defamatory letter to his stenographer, who transcribed the notes, and the letter was then sent to the plaintiff, publication to a third party is sufficiently pleaded (see Hirschfeld v Institutional Inv., 208 AD2d 380 [1st Dept 1994]). 2014In particular, in Ostrowe v Lee ( 256 NY 36 [1931]), Chief Judge Cardozo explained that where it is alleged that the defendant dictated a defamatory letter to his stenographer, who transcribed the notes, and the letter was then sent to the plaintiff, publication to a third party is sufficiently pleaded (see Hirschfeld v Institutional Inv., 208 AD2d 380 [1st Dept 1994]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Gelbard v. Bodary
green
2 sentences2004Defendant relies upon Gelbard v Bodary ( 270 AD2d 866 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 756 [2000]), wherein a libel and slander claim involving the further distribution of a letter to a review committee, first published a month earlier, was dismissed, in part, under the single publication rule. 2001We find, as did the Court of Claims, that the single publication rule applies to this case (see, Gregoire v Putnam’s Sons, 298 NY 119, 123 ; Gelbard v Bodary, 270 AD2d 866, 866-867 , lv denied 95 NY2d 756 ). | 2 | 2001–2004 |
Robert Davis v. James Boeheim
green
1 sentence2024While a statement of pure opinion is generally not defamatory (Bacon v Nygard, 189 AD3d 530 [1st Dept 2020]), and while distinguishing between fact and opinion is a question of law to be decided by the Court, the determination may be dependent on the statement's context, and it can be premature to do so on a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see Davis v Boeheim, 24 NY3d 262 [2014] [even if statement may be pure opinion, "the motion to dismiss must be denied if the communication at issue, taking the words in their ordinary meaning and context, is also 154940/2023 BUCKLER, RAYMOND vs. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re the Arbitration between Consolidated Carting Corp. & Local No. 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
green
1 sentence2019The more recent statements are not actionable because plaintiff failed to set forth the "exact words" complained of ( see Gardner v Alexander Rent-A-Car , 28 AD2d 667 , 667 [1st Dept 1967]) and the "time, place and manner of the purported defamation" ( see Buxbaum v Castro , 104 AD3d 895 , 895 [2d Dept 2013], appeal dismissed 21 NY3d 1061 [2013]; Murphy v City of New York , 59 AD3d 301 [1st Dept 2009]; Manas v VMS Assoc., LLC , 53 AD3d 451, 454-455 [1st Dept 2008]; CPLR 3016[a]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Murphy v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2019The more recent statements are not actionable because plaintiff failed to set forth the "exact words" complained of ( see Gardner v Alexander Rent-A-Car , 28 AD2d 667 , 667 [1st Dept 1967]) and the "time, place and manner of the purported defamation" ( see Buxbaum v Castro , 104 AD3d 895 , 895 [2d Dept 2013], appeal dismissed 21 NY3d 1061 [2013]; Murphy v City of New York , 59 AD3d 301 [1st Dept 2009]; Manas v VMS Assoc., LLC , 53 AD3d 451, 454-455 [1st Dept 2008]; CPLR 3016[a]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Buxbaum v. Castro
neutral
1 sentence2019The more recent statements are not actionable because plaintiff failed to set forth the "exact words" complained of ( see Gardner v Alexander Rent-A-Car , 28 AD2d 667 , 667 [1st Dept 1967]) and the "time, place and manner of the purported defamation" ( see Buxbaum v Castro , 104 AD3d 895 , 895 [2d Dept 2013], appeal dismissed 21 NY3d 1061 [2013]; Murphy v City of New York , 59 AD3d 301 [1st Dept 2009]; Manas v VMS Assoc., LLC , 53 AD3d 451, 454-455 [1st Dept 2008]; CPLR 3016[a]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Buxbaum v. Castro
neutral
1 sentence2019The more recent statements are not actionable because plaintiff failed to set forth the "exact words" complained of ( see Gardner v Alexander Rent-A-Car , 28 AD2d 667 , 667 [1st Dept 1967]) and the "time, place and manner of the purported defamation" ( see Buxbaum v Castro , 104 AD3d 895 , 895 [2d Dept 2013], appeal dismissed 21 NY3d 1061 [2013]; Murphy v City of New York , 59 AD3d 301 [1st Dept 2009]; Manas v VMS Assoc., LLC , 53 AD3d 451, 454-455 [1st Dept 2008]; CPLR 3016[a]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hoesten v. Best
green
1 sentence2014An exception to the single publication rule has been applied when the following factors are present: “the subsequent publication is intended to and actually reaches a new audience,” “the second publication is made on an occasion distinct from the initial one,” “the republished statement has been modified in form or in content,” and “the defendant has control over the decision to republish” (see Hoesten v Best, 34 AD3d at 150-151 ). *104 Thus, for example, repetition of a defamatory statement in a later edition of a book, magazine or newspaper may give rise to a new cause of action (Rinaldi v V | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Tenenbaum v. Axelrod neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| In re the Estate of Griffin green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Castel v. Jean Norihiko Sherlock Corp. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| In re the Estate of Ruso green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. Doe green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Interstate Tractor Trailer Training, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Lunney v. Prodigy Services Co. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Armouth International, Inc. v. Haband Co. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Firth v. State green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Tomasino v. Morrow & Co. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Sorge v. Parade Publications, Inc. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Selkirk v. State green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Sassower v. Finnerty green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| New York Times Co. v. Sullivan green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Stick v. Oakdale Dental Center green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Saha v. Record green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| City of Albany v. Goodman neutral | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Abowitz v. Ghersin green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Weil v. Laube green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Carney v. Memorial Hospital & Nursing Home of Greene County green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Weidman v. Ketcham green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Union Associated Press v. Heath green | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.