You are here: / Defamation
,

THE ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS MADE IN A KOREAN-LANGUAGE CHAT ROOM WERE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statements alleged to be defamatory were protected by qualified privilege. Plaintiff is an organization established to act as a liaison between the Korean-American community and the NYC Police Department. The statements were made in a Korean language chat group where the management of the organization was discussed:

The defendant established, prima facie, that his alleged statements are subject to a qualified privilege. Qualified privilege applies to a statement “when it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs, in a matter where his [or her] interest is concerned” … . Application of the privilege depends on whether “the relation of the parties [is] such as to afford reasonable ground for supposing an innocent motive for giving the information, and to deprive the act of an appearance of officious intermeddling with the affairs of others” … . Here, the alleged statements were made in a password-controlled, members-only chat group, and involved the management of the members’ organization. Such circumstances fall within the scope of the qualified privilege … .

A plaintiff may defeat the qualified privilege with a showing of either common-law malice (spite or ill will), or actual malice (knowledge of the falsity of the statement or reckless disregard for the truth) … . Here, the plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence that the defendant was motivated by malice alone in making the alleged statements … . They similarly failed to submit any evidence that the defendant knew the alleged statements were false or acted with a reckless disregard for their truth … . Joo Tae Yoo v Choi, 2022 NY Slip Op 06791, Second Dept 11-30-22

Practice Point:  Qualified privilege applies to  an allegedly defamatory statement “when it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs, in a matter where his [or her] interest is concerned” … . Qualified privilege will be defeated if is demonstrated the statements were made with “common law malice” (ill will or spite) or “actual malice (knowledge of the falsity of the statement or reckless disregard for the truth).

 

/0 Comments/by

AN UNFAVORABLE ANONYMOUS GOOGLE REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF ORTHODONTIST, ALTHOUGH IT INCLUDED BOTH FACT AND OPINION, WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD BY A READER TO BE PURE OPINION; THE REVIEW IS NOT ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an unfavorable Google review of plaintiff orthodontist by a former minor patient did not constitute actionable defamation:

Plaintiffs, an orthodontist and his professional corporation, allege that defendants — a former minor patient and that patient’s parents — defamed them in an unfavorable review posted on Google. Contrary to Supreme Court’s holding, we find that, although defendants’ Google review contains elements of both fact and opinion, it nevertheless is not actionable … , and it was not the motion court’s province to “sift[] through [the] communication for the purpose of isolating and identifying assertions of fact” … . Rather, the court should have considered the overall context in which the communication was made, an anonymous online review of plaintiff’s services … .

Here, a reasonable reader of defendants’ Google review would understand it to be pure opinion based on the context in which it was posted and its arguably “[l]oose, figurative, or hyperbolic” tone … . Furthermore, defendants’ Google review was posted anonymously online and, as we have recognized, “‘[R]eaders give less credence to allegedly defamatory remarks published on the Internet than to similar remarks made in other contexts'” … . DeRicco v Maidman, 2022 NY Slip Op 05921, First Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: An unfavorable, anonymous Google review of plaintiff orthodontist, although it included both fact and opinion, would be understood by readers to be pure opinion. The review therefore did not constitute actionable defamation.

 

/by
,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO SCHEDULE A 50-H HEARING AFTER ADJOURNING IT TWICE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE RELEVANT CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY EXECUTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s failure to schedule a 50-h hearing after adjourning it twice required dismissal (without prejudice) of certain causes of action in this defamation suit against a county executive:

Supreme Court erred in denying the motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the first through fourth causes of action on the ground that plaintiff failed to comply with defendant’s demand for an oral examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h (1), and we therefore modify the order accordingly. “[A] plaintiff who has not complied with General Municipal Law § 50—h (1) is precluded from maintaining an action against a municipality” … . Here, plaintiff adjourned the examination on two separate occasions and failed to respond to defendant’s subsequent request that she choose from a list of dates when she would be available for examination. Under the circumstances, plaintiff bore the burden of rescheduling the examination … , and because plaintiff failed to reschedule, she was barred by statute from commencing an action … .

“Although compliance with General Municipal Law § 50—h (1) may be excused in ‘exceptional circumstances’ ” … , there were no such circumstances here. Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, the first through fourth causes of action should be dismissed without prejudice … .Landa v Poloncarz, 2022 NY Slip Op 04490, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff twice adjourned the 50-h hearing and then did not respond to defendant’s attempt to schedule a third. Under those circumstances it was plaintiff’s responsibility to schedule a hearing. Failure to do so required dismissal of the relevant causes of action (without prejudice).

 

/by
, ,

THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTES IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PROTECTED DEFENDANT AGAINST A DEFAMATION ACTION BY THE PLASTIC SURGEON ABOUT WHOM DEFENDANT POSTED NEGATIVE ONLINE REVIEWS; THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AND DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, in a matter of first impression, determined the Civil Rights Law anti-SLAPP statutes protected defendant’s negative online reviews of plaintiff Aristocrat Plastic Surgery and Dr. Kevin Tehrani. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint but did not award defendant attorney’s fees or damages because the anti-SLAPP statutes were deemed not to apply. The First Department held that the anti-SLAPP statutes applied and defendant was entitled to attorney’s fees and damages:

… [D]efendant posted her reviews on two public internet forums, one of which has a stated purpose of being a key advisor for people considering plastic surgery, and the purpose of defendant’s reviews was to provide information to potential patients, including reasons not to book an appointment with Dr. Tehrani. Defendant’s posts concerning the plastic surgery performed upon her by Dr. Tehrani qualify as an exercise of her constitutional right of free speech and a comment on a matter of legitimate public concern and public interest—namely, medical treatment rendered by a physician’s professional corporation and the physician performing surgery under its auspices … . We therefore find that defendant’s negative website reviews of plaintiffs’ services constitute a matter of “public interest” as set forth in Civil Rights Law § 76-a(1)(d).

Since defendant’s posts fall under the ambit of the amended anti-SLAPP law, defendant is entitled to seek damages and attorneys’ fees under Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a and 76-a(1)(a)(1). Aristocrat Plastic Surgery, P.C. v Silva, 2022 NY Slip Op 03311, First Dept 5-19-22

Practice Point: The anti-SLAPP statutes in the Civil Rights Law protected defendant from a defamation action by the plastic surgeon about whom defendant posted negative online reviews. The doctor’s complaint was dismissed and defendant was entitled to attorney’s fees and damages. Business reviews are matters of public interest and concern.

 

/by

EVEN CRIMINAL SLURS ARE NOT ACTIONABLE AS DEFAMATION IF THEY ARE PURE OPINION; HERE DEFENDANT’S TWEET ACCUSING PLAINTIFF OF MAKING “THREATS” WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined even communications which could be considered “criminal slurs” are not actionable as defamation if they are “pure opinion.” The defendant was a member of the NYC council representing Queens. When defendant opposed the construction of an Amazon corporate headquarters in Queens, plaintiff, a local restaurant owner, in text messages, indicated defendant’s career would be ended if defendant did not withdraw his opposition to the Amazon project: Defendant then put out a tweet accusing plaintiff of making “threats.” Plaintiff brought this defamation action based on that tweet.. Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and the Second Department reversed:

The defendant’s characterization of the plaintiff’s text as containing “several threats rolled into one” is not a statement which can be proved true or false but was, instead, an opinion … . Moreover, “there is simply no special rule of law making criminal slurs actionable regardless of whether they are asserted as opinion or fact” … . Instead, “accusations of criminality [can] be regarded as mere hypothesis and therefore not actionable if the facts on which they are based are fully and accurately set forth” … . Here, the defendant’s statement amounts to no more than “nonactionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole” … . Bowen v Van Bramer, 2022 NY Slip Op 02975, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: A tweet accusing plaintiff of making “threats” against defendant city council member (representing Queens) was not actionable as defamation. Plaintiff, a restaurant owner, had texted defendant saying that people would work to end defendant’s political career if he didn’t retract his opposition to Amazon’s building a corporate headquarters in Queens. Defendant then posted plaintiff’s comments in a tweet and accused plaintiff of making “threats.” Plaintiff sued for defamation based on that tweet. In dismissing the complaint, the Second Department noted that even “criminal slurs” are not actionable where, as here, they are “pure opinion.”

 

/by
,

DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS TO THE UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION (USTA) ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S BULLYING OF HER SON AT JUNIOR TOURNAMENTS WERE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE; ANY STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FALSE WERE NOT MOTIVATED BY MALICE; THE DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Zayas, determined that the defamation action should have been dismissed. Defendant’s son was a tennis player who participated in United State Tennis Association (USTA) junior tournaments. Defendant communicated with the USTA alleging that plaintiff, another tennis player, was bullying defendant’s son. The only statements attributed to defendant alleged to have been defamatory were allegations plaintiff had been “kicked out” of tennis programs because of his behavior. The Second Department held that the complaints about bullying were privileged and the statements alleged to have been defamatory were not demonstrated to have been made with malice:

… [T]he defendant established … that her email to [the USTA] was protected by a qualified privilege. The defendant unquestionably had an interest, as a parent, in complying with [USTA’s] request that she put her concerns in writing and thus reporting, in a more formal way, serious allegations of bullying—none of which, it bears emphasizing, were alleged to be defamatory—that, in her view, put her son’s physical and emotional well-being at risk … .* * *

[Re: malice:]The extensive submissions … make clear that no factfinder could reasonably conclude that the defendant was not motivated, at least in substantial part, by legitimate concerns for her son’s emotional well-being and physical safety. Porges v Weitz, 2022 NY Slip Op 01823, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Defendant’s complaints to the United State Tennis Association about plaintiff’s bullying her son at junior tournaments were protected by qualified privilege. Any statements alleged to have been false were not motivated by malice. Therefore the defamation action should have been dismissed.

 

/by
, , ,

THE PRIVILEGE AFFORDED ATTORNEYS UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW RE: ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY CLAIMS INCLUDED IN A COMPLAINT (WITH ONE EXCEPTION NOT APPLICABLE HERE) IS ABSOLUTE, EVEN IN THE FACE OF ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE AND BAD FAITH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the allegedly defamatory claims included in a complaint against plaintiff were absolutely privileged with respect to the attorneys who drafted the complaint.

… [T]here is no evidence to support a claim that defendant attorneys acted with malice against plaintiff, either in the commencement of this case or in the preparation of the papers as well as any dissemination of the papers, which are for public consumption to a reporter. … [T]here are no … issues of fact as to whether defendant attorneys instituted and sought to publicize a “sham” action containing defamatory allegations against plaintiff for the sole or primary purpose of disseminating those defamatory allegations while cloaking them in the privilege that attends certain statements made in connection with proceedings before a court (see Williams v Williams, 23 NY2d 592, 599 [1969]). …

In the absence of alleged facts supporting the Williams exception, the privilege under Civil Rights Law § 74 is absolute and applies even where the plaintiff alleges malice or bad faith … . Weeden v Lukezic, 2022 NY Slip Op 00026, First Dept 1-4-22

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS CONVICTED OF THE MURDER OF HIS FATHER AND THE ATTEMPTED MURDER OF HIS MOTHER; THE FILM ABOUT THE CRIMES DOES NOT VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50 AND 51 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a comprehensive decision well-worth reading, determined defendant, the creator of a docudrama about Christopher Porco’s murder and attempted murder convictions, did not violate Porco’s right to privacy under Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51. The statutes allow the depiction of newsworthy events, but the statutes could be violated by fictional material. The Third Department determined the “dramatized” or “fictional” aspects of the film did not violate the statutes, in part because the audience is notified that the film is “based on a true story” and includes dramatized and fictionalized material:

… [T]he film is a dramatization that at times departed from actual events, including by recreating dialogue and scenes, using techniques such as flashbacks and staged interviews, giving fictional names to some individuals and replacing others altogether with composite characters. The film nevertheless presents a broadly accurate depiction of the crime, the ensuing criminal investigation and the trial that are matters of public interest. More importantly, the film makes no effort to present itself as unalloyed truth or claim that its depiction of plaintiffs was entirely accurate, instead alerting the viewer at the outset that it is only “[b]ased on a true story” and reiterating at the end that it is “a dramatization” in which “some names have been changed, some characters are composites and certain other characters and events have been fictionalized.” In our view, the foregoing satisfied defendant’s initial burden of showing that the film addressed matters of public interest through a blend of fact and fiction that was readily acknowledged, did not mislead viewers into believing that its related depictions of plaintiffs was true and was not, as a result, “so infected with fiction, dramatization or embellishment that it cannot be said to fulfill the purpose of the newsworthiness exception” … . Porco v Lifetime Entertainment Servs., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04072, Third Dept 6-24-21

 

/by
, ,

FORMER STUDENT’S ALLEGATIONS DEFENDANT COLLEGE BREACHED ITS AGREEMENT THAT IT WOULD NOT DISCLOSE ITS DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE STUDENT TO SCHOOLS TO WHICH THE STUDENT APPLIED FOR ADMISSION PROPERLY SURVIVED THE COLLEGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS; ADOPTING AND APPLYING THE HEIGHTENED STANDARD FOR DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION, THE DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant college breached its agreement with plaintiff-student regarding the disclosure of information about the school’s disciplinary proceedings alleging sexual misconduct. After finding the student had violated the code of student conduct the student was expelled. The student was then acquitted of criminal charges stemming from the same allegations. The student and the school entered an agreement prohibiting the school from disclosing information about the disciplinary proceedings to schools to which the student applied for admission. The complaint alleged the school breached that agreement and included a cause of action for defamation by implication. The breach of contract causes of action properly survived the motion to dismiss, but the defamation cause of action should have been dismissed:

” ‘Defamation by implication’ is premised not on direct statements but on false suggestions, impressions and implications arising from otherwise truthful statements” (id. at 380-381). We now join the other Departments in adopting the heightened legal standard for a claim of defamation by implication … . Under that standard, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss a claim for defamation by implication where the factual statements at issue are substantially true, the plaintiff must make a rigorous showing that the language of the communication as a whole can be reasonably read both to impart a defamatory inference and to affirmatively suggest that the author intended or endorsed that inference” … . …

The disclosure that plaintiff was found responsible in a student disciplinary proceeding for sexual misconduct and assault as defined in a student code of conduct does not imply that there was a criminal proceeding … . …

 … [A]lthough plaintiff may wish that additional information from the College would have provided further context for the truthful information that was conveyed, the disclosure to Buffalo State did not imply anything false about plaintiff … . Bisimwa v St. John Fisher Coll., 2021 NY Slip Op 02962, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

/by

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

 

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy