352 COM - Media Law
Common Law Libel Cases
Stein v. Trager
Page (1/1)
Stein v. Trager
232 N.Y.S. 2d 363 (Supreme Court, Erie County, 1962
Judge Lawless:
Plaintiff was a research fellow of the University of Buffalo, and the defendant was a professor in the Department
of Anthropology and Linguistics at that university and was teaching the plaintiff. The complaint charges the
defendant with having referred to plaintiff as psychopath, very destructive, anti-social, son-of-a-bitch,
intellectually incompetent, immoral, liar, homosexual, and [as a person who] made up all the data for his
Masters thesis.
It is fundamental that in a complaint based upon slander there must be an allegation of special damage, or the
words spoken must be slanderous per se. To be held slanderous per se, the words must charge a person with a
punishable crime, or they must tend to injure a person in his trade, occupation, or profession.
In the complaint before this court, the only word spoken which might remotely constitute a punishable crime
is the allegation that the plaintiff is a homosexual. an However, examination of the New York Criminal Code
and Penal Law fails to disclose any specific crime embraced in the phrase homosexual. We conclude, therefore, that the use of this phrase does not constitute words which charge a punishable crime and that this word is
not slanderous per se.
The other group of words that have been held to be slanderous per se are those which tend to injure a person in
his trade, occupation, or profession. The words must be spoken in relation to the profession or trade. Disparagement of a professional man will ipso facto be actionable per se.
In the complaint before us, there is no allegation that the plaintiff was pursuing a trade, business, or profession at the time of the alleged slander. The claim is that he was a graduate student seeking to continue graduate study. The complaint before us is deficient because it fails to allege that the plaintiff was engaged in a trade,
business, or profession, and it fails further, for the reason that it does not allege that the words damaged plaintiff
in his trades, business, or profession.