You are here: / / KESHA, A RECORDING ARTIST, MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT HER MUSIC PRODUCER,...

KESHA, A RECORDING ARTIST, MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT HER MUSIC PRODUCER, GOTTWALD, HAD DRUGGED AND SEXUALLY ABUSED HER; GOTTWALD WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN HIS DEFAMATION ACTION; GOTTWALD DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE MALICE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A GENERAL-PURPOSE OR LIMITED-PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff music producer, Gottwald, was entitled to summary judgment on his defamation action against Kesha, a recording artist with whom Gottwald had entered a contract. Gottwald alleged Kesha falsely claimed Gottwald had drugged and sexually abused her in an effort to force Gattwald to release her from the recording contract. The allegations were published in text messages to Lady Gaga and others. The Second Department found that Gottwald was not a general-purpose or a limited-purpose public figure and provided detailed definitions of both. Therefore Gottwald did not have to prove malice on Kesha’s part. The dissent disagreed with the majority’s conclusion Gottwald was not a public figure:

A person can only be a general-purpose public figure if “he [or she] is a ‘celebrity’; his [or her] name a ‘household word’ whose ideas and actions the public in fact follows with great interest “and ‘invite[s] attention and comment'” … . * * *

To be considered a limited purpose public figure Gottwald must have: (1) successfully invited public attention to his views in an effort to influence others prior to the incident in question, (2) voluntarily injected himself into a public controversy related to the subject of the current litigation, (3) assumed a position of prominence in the public controversy, and (4) maintained a regular and continuing access to the media to influence the outcome of the public controversy.

Gottwald cannot be found to be a limited-purpose public figure because he has not done any of these things. Gottwald v Sebert, 2021 NY Slip Op 02456, First Dept 4-22-21

 

You might also like
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY RAISED QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE.
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM BY ERECTING AN OPAQUE FENCE AROUND A CONSTRUCTION SITE WHICH BLOCKED DRIVERS’ AND PEDESTRIANS’ LINES OF SIGHT IN AN INTERSECTION; PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS STRUCK BY A CAR WHEN HE STEPPED BEYOND THE FENCE INTO A LANE OF TRAFFIC (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE IMPROPERLY RELIED ON CPL 440.30 (d) WHICH ONLY APPLIES IF THE MOTION IS BASED SOLELY ON AN ALLEGATION BY THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
RESPONDENT CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOIL REQUEST WOULD INTERFERE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR WOULD REVEAL A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FOIL REQUEST WAS PROTECTED BY THE INTER- OR INTRA- AGENCY MATERIALS EXEMPTION (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT REQUIREMENTS IN THE BUILDING-CONSTRUCTION BOND PRECLUDED RECOVERY UNDER THE BOND FOR CONSTRUCTION DELAYS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT TOOK ADEQUATE MEASURES TO KEEP THE FLOOR DRY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
Securities Did Not Pass Outside the Estate, Requirements of Transfer on Death Security Registration Act (TODSRA) Not Me

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

IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE CONTRACT WHETHER DEFENDANT TRUSTEE WAS TO PERFORM A... DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE BANK’S LETTER DE-ACCELERATING...