Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Franklin
Liberman v. Gelstein
Citation:80 N.Y.2d 429, 605 N.E.2d 344, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857 (N.Y. 1992)
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Liberman sued Gelstein for slander.
The first cause of action was based on an exchange that Gelstein had with a fellow member of the tenants’ board of governors, in which Gelstein accused Liberman of bribing a police officer to refrain from ticketing cars parked around Liberman’s building.
The second cause of action was based on the allegation that Gelstein told employees of the building that Liberman threw a punch at him and threatened his wife and daughter.
Gelstein argued that the first cause of action could be resolved under the “common interest” qualified privilege to uncover Liberman’s wrongdoing because Gelstein had witnesses multiple cars parked around the buildings past the legal limit that were never ticketed and Gelstein also was told that Liberman was bribing police officers by two building employees.
As for the second cause of action, Gelstein argued that the statements were either true (and therefore not defamatory) or never made.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.