You are here: / / Questions of Fact About Defamatory Meaning and Malice Re: Statements Concerning...

Questions of Fact About Defamatory Meaning and Malice Re: Statements Concerning a Public Figure

The Third Department determined plaintiff, a public figure, had raised questions of fact about whether defamatory advertisements were done with malice:

Plaintiff was a public figure … and, as such, he must prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant made a false statement with actual malice … . Distinguishing actionable fact from a protected expression of opinion is a question of law in which several factors are weighed, including whether the allegedly defamatory words have a precise meaning that is readily understood, whether the statement can be proven as true or false, and whether the context and surrounding circumstances would indicate that the comment is an opinion … . Further, summary judgment dismissing a defamation action may be avoided where the statement is a “‘mixed opinion’ implying a basis in undisclosed fact” or “‘pure opinion’ that accuses the plaintiff of engaging in criminal conduct”… .Since defendant’s statement includes both a strong inference that he knows undisclosed facts that support his assertion that plaintiff engaged in “numerous unscrupulous dealings” when he previously was Town Supervisor and includes an example that indicated possible unlawful abuse of that office, we agree with Supreme Court that the statements are sufficiently susceptible to a defamatory meaning to avoid summary judgment … . Moreover, defendant essentially acknowledged at his deposition that he had no basis for some of his accusations, and when this proof is viewed most favorably to the nonmovant, there is adequate evidence in the record to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether defendant acted with actual malice… . Baker v Galusha, 517125, 3rd Dept 2-27-14

 

You might also like
PARALEGAL IN SMALL LAW OFFICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PLACEMENT OF A PROPANE HEATER IN DEFENDANT’S STORE CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLOTHING CATCHING FIRE (THIRD DEPT).
THE RECEIVER APPOINTED TO CONTROL PROPERTY INVOLVED IN AN OWNERSHIP DISPUTE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OWNER IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT). ​
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING REMITTED FOR AGE-APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION CONCERNING THREE OF THE CHILDREN TO DETERMINE THEIR WISHES.
APPELLANT WAS NOT AGGRIEVED BY SUPREME COURT’S DECISION WHICH DENIED HER MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE PENDING FURTHER DISCOVERY; THEREFORE THE APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER’S INCARCERATION CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES RE FATHER’S VISITATION/CONTACT PETITIONS; HEARING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; VISITATION PETITIONS NEED NOT BE VERIFIED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; E-FILING WAS VOLUNTARY IN CHENANGO COUNTY SO FAILURE TO E-FILE WAS NOT A GROUND FOR REJECTION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION PAPERS (THIRD DEPT).
Contract-Based Duty Owed to Non-Party Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Post-Conviction DNA Test Results Warranted New Trial Under 2012 Amendment to... Mother’s Failure to Seek Medical Care for Child Coupled With Mother’s Mental...