
    BRAKE AND ALIGNMENT SUPPLY CORP., INC., t/a Brake World, Appellant, v. POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS OF FLORIDA, INC., a/k/a WPLG-TV, Channel 10, Appellee.
    No. 84-2385.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    June 18, 1985.
    Rehearing Denied Aug. 1, 1985.
    
      Jerry B. Schreiber, Miami, for appellant.
    Steel Hector & Davis and Donald M. Middlebrooks and Samuel J. Dubbin and Jerry B. Crockett, Miami, for appellee.
    Before NESBITT, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary judgment entered in favor of Post-News week Stations of Florida, Inc., a/k/a WPLG-TV, CHANNEL 10, upon a holding that a truthful and accurate report of the outcome of judicial proceedings will not establish a media defendant’s liability. It is not libelous to restate prior accusations when winding up a news story. See Jamason v. Palm. Beach Newspapers, Inc., 450 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Applestein v. Knight Newspapers, Inc., 337 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see also Huszar v. Gross, 468 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Affirmed.

NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ., concur.

JORGENSON, Judge,

concurring specialty-

I agree with an affirmance in this ease and would add an additional ground. The plaintiff in this case, Brake and Alignment Supply Corp., Inc., t/a Brake World [“Brake World”], is a franchisor which sought to step into the shoes of its franchisee, Brake and Alignment World, Inc. of 27th Avenue [“Brake, World of 27th Avenue”], a defendant in a consumer fraud action and the actual subject of the newscast. Since Brake World was never a party to the consumer lawsuit brought by the attorney general’s office against Brake World of 27th Avenue, it cannot be heard to complain about the publication and has no standing in this libel action. See Montgomery v. Knox, 23 Fla. 595, 3 So. 211 (1887); Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So.2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert, denied, 279 So.2d 32 (Fla.1973).

BASKIN, Judge

(concurring specially).

Just as in Applestein v. Knight Newspapers, Inc., 337 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), the case before us presents no genuine issue of material fact that the challenged statements are true in all pertinent respects. Thus, because truth constitutes a defense to libel, affirmance is appropriate.  