You are here: / / DEFAMATION ACTION BASED UPON A REPORTER’S NAMING THE WRONG TEACHER...

DEFAMATION ACTION BASED UPON A REPORTER’S NAMING THE WRONG TEACHER AS HAVING BULLIED A FIFTH-GRADER PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE REPORTER HAD SUFFICIENT REASON TO RELY ON THE STUDENT’S MOTHER AND ANOTHER SOURCE BOTH OF WHOM PROVIDED THE WRONG NAME (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant WPIX was not liable for an article about the bullying of a fifth-grader by a teacher. The teacher allegedly involved in the bullying had the last name “Rainbow,” but plaintiff, Starlight Rainbow, also a teacher, had no involvement with the student. The article misidentified the involved teacher as Starlight Rainbow. The First Department explained the standard of proof and found that the WPIX reporter had sufficient reason to rely on the wrong name provided by the student’s mother and another source. The court further found that there was no duty to retract the story:

The parties … agree that the article concerned a matter of public concern, and that plaintiff is not a public figure. Thus, to prevail on a defamation claim, plaintiff must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that WPIX was “grossly irresponsible” in publishing the article on its website, in that it acted “without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” (Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 NY2d 196, 199 [1975]). The gross irresponsibility standard of Chapadeau is more lenient than the actual malice standard applicable to public figures … . * * *

… .WPIX could not be held liable for failure to retract the article during the nearly seven months that elapsed from her August 2014 retraction demand to its removal of the article from its website in March, 2015 upon her commencement of this case. Plaintiff provides “no authority to support [her] argument that the Chapadeau standard imposes a duty to correct previously-acquired information — and the law does not recognize such an obligation” … . Rainbow v WPIX, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00499, First Dept 1-23-20

 

You might also like
CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNER HAS RIGHT TO INSPECT AND MAKE PAPER AND ELECTRONIC COPIES OF CONDOMINIUM RECORDS; CONDOMINIUM BOARD MEMBERS CANNOT BE SUED INDIVIDUALLY FOR NONFEASANCE BUT CAN BE SUED IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES.
VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).
Tenant’s Common Law Duty to Keep Sidewalk on the Premises Safe Applies Even Though Another Party Agreed to Maintain the Sidewalk in Its Lease
THE WARRANT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO MORE THAN 1100 SHARES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S STOCK WAS APPENDED TO PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT; THE TWO CONTRACTS DID NOT MERGE AND ANY ALLEGED BREACH OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BY PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRECLUDE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE WARRANT (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
THE “NO ACTION” PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT PRECLUDED PLAINTIFFS FROM BRINGING A JUDICIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; THE AVAILABLE CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES WERE DEEMED EXCLUSIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FORKLIFT ACCIDENT RESULTED FROM A HOLE OR CRACK IN THE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S BUILDING; EVEN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK IN A REASONABLY SAFE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
INSURER OF A BUS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE BUS COMPANY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER WHO FELL ATTEMPTING TO PICK UP HER LUGGAGE OUTSIDE THE BUS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT BASED UPON THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF... STATEMENT FROM PLAINTIFF’S OUT-OF-STATE EXPERT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE...