You are here: / / Defamation Action Brought by Judge Against a Reporter Properly Dismissed—Although...
,

Defamation Action Brought by Judge Against a Reporter Properly Dismissed—Although the Reporter Made Defamatory Statements Which Were Not Privileged, the Judge Failed to Raise a Question of Fact About Malice as a Motivation

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department affirmed the dismissal of a defamation action brought by a judge against a reporter.  The court determined that the reporter had made inaccurate statements which were defamatory and which were not privileged under  the Civil Rights Law.  However, because the judge was a public figure, the New York Times v Sullivan “malice” standard applied and, the court determined, the judge was unable to raise a question of fact about malice as a motivation for the reporting:

Although we agree with Justice Martin that the published columns were susceptible of a defamatory interpretation, were not protected opinion, and were not privileged under Civil Rights Law § 74, that is not the end of the inquiry; Justice Martin had to also clear the demanding hurdle presented by the standard set in New York Times Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254, 279-280 [1964]). Since he is a public figure, he had the burden of showing, with convincing clarity, actual malice — that is, that the author and publisher of the columns acted with reckless disregard for the truth … . “The standard is a subjective one, focusing on the speaker’s state of mind” … . This standard of “convincing clarity” applies even on a motion for summary judgment … .

“[R]eckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication” … . “[I]t is essential that the First Amendment protect some erroneous publications as well as true ones” … . Therefore, to prevail, Justice Martin was required to offer a showing tending to establish that Louis ” in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication,’ or acted with a high degree of awareness of [its] probable falsity'” … . Martin v Daily News LP, 2014 NY Slip Op 05369, 1st Dept 7-17-14

 

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ADVERSE INTEREST EXCEPTION TO THE IN PARI DELICTO DEFENSE APPLIES IN THIS ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE CASE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, WORKING FOR A SUBSIDIARY OF VERIZON, WAS INJURED LAYING A CABLE UNDER A CITY STREET; THE MAJORITY HELD THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND VERIZON AND/OR THE ISSUANCE OF A CITY PERMIT RENDERED THE CITY A PROPER DEFENDANT; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).
BUILDING RESIDENTS CAN BRING CLASS ACTION AGAINST OWNERS-MANAGERS ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE IN PREPARATION FOR SUPERSTORM SANDY.
Level One Request for Information Not Justified by “Drug-Prone” Area or Defendant’s “Flight”—Seized Handgun Should Have Been Suppressed
THE SIX-YEAR DELAY, DURING WHICH DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL; THE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE NYC ADMININSTRATIVE CODE MAKES TENANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ICE AND SNOW FROM SIDEWALKS, IT DOES NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO DO SO; THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ALSO MAKES PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL; THE LEASE SPECIFICALLY STATED DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING SNOW AND ICE FROM THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Applying New Jersey Law—Removal of Safety Guard from Machine Did Not Destroy the Applicability of Workers’ Compensation as the Exclusive Remedy
REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN FROM MOTHER’S CARE WITHOUT NOTICE DEPRIVED MOTHER OF HER RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).

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

Dissenter Would Have Reduced Defendant’s Sentence Because of His Age (15),... Deposit of Separate Funds in a Joint Account for One Month Converted the Separate...