You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, AN EDITORIAL DIRECTOR AT GAWKER, DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE...

PLAINTIFF, AN EDITORIAL DIRECTOR AT GAWKER, DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE DAILY BEAST REPORTERS WHO WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT GAWKER VIOLATED THE “GROSS IRRESPONSIBILITY STANDARD” IN MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF; THE DEFAMATION COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, an editor, did not sufficiently allege the reporters who wrote a story about the company where plaintiff worked acted in a “grossly irresponsible manner,” the standard for defamation in this context:

Plaintiff, who at the time of the article was employed by BDG Media as the editorial director of the digital media website Gawker, alleges that the article contained misleading excerpts of her communications with her colleagues at Gawker, omitting relevant context in order to inaccurately portray her as racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and transphobic. Plaintiff further alleges that the statements published in the article were false, misleading, or, to the extent they contained literal truth, taken out of context to place her in a defamatory light. Plaintiff maintains that … BDG Media terminated her employment as a result of the article.

… [P]laintiff’s defamation cause of action withstands dismissal only if she adequately alleges that defendants, all of whom are members of the media, “‘acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties'” in writing and publishing the article … The “gross irresponsibility standard demands no more than that a publisher utilize methods of verification that are reasonably calculated to produce accurate copy” and does not require “exhaustive research [or] painstaking judgments” … . Furthermore, the alleged falsity or defamatory meaning of certain statements is not probative of whether defendants acted with gross irresponsibility … . Griffith v Daily Beast, 2023 NY Slip Op 02614, First Dept 5-16-23

Practice Point: Where matters of legitimate public concern are implicated, a plaintiff alleging defamation by reporters must allege the reporters violated the “gross irresponsibility standard;” the complaint here failed to do so.

 

You might also like
THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANTS FROM CALLING PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIANS AS WITNESSES IN THIS POLICE EXCESSIVE FORCE CASE BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE NOTICE AND THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ACCEPTED PLAINTIFF’S REDACTIONS OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS BECAUSE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO SUGGEST THEIR OWN REDACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TOLLING STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE OF THE COVID PANDEMIC DOES NOT APPLY TO THE TIME LIMITS FOR RESPONSES TO FOIL REQUESTS (FIRST DEPT).
CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BOTH CONSTRUCTIVE AND ACTUAL FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE STATED, ELEMENTS DESCRIBED.
THE EVIDENCE FATHER NEGLECTED THE DAUGHTER (EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) WAS SUFFICIENT; BUT THE EVIDENCE FATHER DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED THE SON WAS NOT (FIRST DEPT).
NONSIGNATORY WHICH RECEIVED A DIRECT BENEFIT FROM AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION PROVISION IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-INVESTOR’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF ITS DRUG WAS MISLEADING AND VIOLATED THE FEDERAL SECURITIES ACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
IF THE FACTS FIT THE STATUTORY CRITERIA OF THE “HEIRS ACT” (RPAPL 993(2)), THE ACT MUST BE APPLIED TO A PARTITION ACTION RE: PROPERTY HELD BY TENANTS-IN-COMMON (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER ZIP LINE WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE RISKS OF USING THE ZIP LINE.

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

THE DEFENDANT ARGUED A 2022 US SUPREME COURT RULING FINDING NEW YORK’S... ALTHOUGH THE NYC ADMININSTRATIVE CODE MAKES TENANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING...