You are here: / Defamation
, ,

SUPREMACY CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR STATEMENTS MADE WHILE A CANDIDATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the Supremacy Clause did not preclude a New York State civil suit for defamation against President Trump. In response to allegations by the plaintiff that Donald Trump had made unwanted sexual advances, then candidate Trump made statements denying the allegations (made by plaintiff and other women), calling them false and outright lies saying, for example, “all of these liars will be sued after the election is over:”

… [T]he current sitting President attempts to shield himself from consequences for his alleged unofficial misconduct by relying upon the constitutional protection of the Presidency. We reject defendant President Trump’s argument that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prevents a New York State court – and every other state court in the country – from exercising its authority under its state constitution. Instead, we find that the Supremacy Clause was never intended to deprive a state court of its authority to decide cases and controversies under the state’s constitution.

… [T]he Supremacy Clause provides that federal law supersedes state law with which it conflicts, but it does not provide that the President himself is immune from state law that does not conflict with federal law. Since there is no federal law conflicting with or displacing this defamation action, the Supremacy Clause does not provide a basis for immunizing the President from state court civil damages actions. Moreover, in the absence of a federal law limiting state court jurisdiction, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Thus, it follows that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendant and properly denied his motion to dismiss. Zervos v Trump, 2019 NY Slip Op 01851, First Dept 3-14-19

 

,

EMAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF PLAINTIFF’S PHD PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant’s CPLR 4401 motion to dismiss the complaint after trial in this defamation action was properly granted. The statements were deemed to be protected by qualified privilege:

The parties are members of the faculty of the School of Business at Medgar Evers College (hereinafter MEC), a college of the City University of New York (hereinafter CUNY). The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that each of the defendants sent an email defaming her to other faculty and staff within the School of Business. The content of the emails related to the quality or legitimacy of the plaintiff’s doctoral degree, and included statements that she did not have a recognized Ph.D., that her degree was not genuine, and that it was purchased from a diploma mill.  * * *

A qualified privilege extends to a communication made by one person to another upon a subject in which both have an interest … . The privilege does not apply where the plaintiff can demonstrate that the communication was not made in good faith, but was motivated solely by malice, meaning, in this context, “spite or a knowing or reckless disregard of a statement’s falsity” … . However, “[m]ere conclusory allegations, or charges based upon surmise, conjecture, and suspicion are insufficient to defeat the claim of qualified privilege” … .

Here, based on the plaintiff’s evidence, the challenged statements concerned a matter in which the defendants and the recipients of the defendants’ emails had a common interest, namely, the academic reputation and integrity of the School of Business and its faculty … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, accepting her evidence as true and affording her every favorable inference which may be properly drawn from it … , that evidence does not support a reasonable conclusion that the challenged statements were motivated solely by malice. Udeogalanya v Kiho, 2019 NY Slip Op 01251, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

, ,

STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE CONCERNING HER DECISION TO FIRE PLAINTIFF, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MONROE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, WERE EITHER ABSOLUTELY OR QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined statements made to the press by the county executive (Brooks) concerning her decision to terminate plaintiff (the executive director of the Monroe Community Hospital (MCH)) were either absolutely or qualifiedly privileged:

The absolute privilege defense affords complete immunity from liability for defamation to ” an official [who] is a principal executive of State or local government’ . . . with respect to statements made during the discharge of those responsibilities about matters which come within the ambit of those duties” …  “The first prong of that test . . . [requires an examination of] the personal position or status of the speaker,” and “the second prong . . . requires an examination of the subject matter of the statement and the forum in which it is made in the light of the speaker’s public duties” … . We conclude that absolute privilege applies here because Brooks was the Monroe County Executive (see id.) and her statements with respect to plaintiff’s termination concerned matters involving her official duties. Furthermore, because the investigation and the underlying actions of plaintiff became a matter of public attention and controversy, Brooks’s form of communication, i.e., statements to the press, was warranted … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that the statements were not covered by absolute privilege, we conclude that the defense of qualified privilege applies. “Generally, a statement is subject to a qualified privilege 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 [or her] own affairs, in a matter where his [or her] interest is concerned” … . Here, defendants satisfied their initial burden by establishing that Brooks made the relevant statements in her role as the Monroe County Executive, thereby discharging her responsibility to keep the public informed regarding a sensitive issue that had obtained extensive media attention … , and thus “the burden shifted to plaintiff[] to raise a triable issue of fact whether the statements were motivated solely by malice” … . Spring v County of Monroe, 2019 NY Slip Op 00747, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

, ,

DEFAMATORY REMARKS MADE AT A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC MEETING HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MEETING AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED, PLAINTIFF’S DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s defamation action properly survived a motion to dismiss. The defendant sought permission from the Village’s Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review to add an exterior stairway to her house. At the public meeting plaintiff, defendant’s neighbor, objected to the stairway. Then defendant made some remarks directly to plaintiff which, in essence, accused plaintiff of setting up a camera to view defendant’s daughter’s bedroom. The Second Department noted that statements at a public meeting before a municipal body are generally absolutely privileged. But here the statements had nothing to do with the substance of the meeting:

“The elements of a cause of action for defamation are (a) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (b) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (c) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (d) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se” … .

“Absolute privilege is based upon the personal position or status of the speaker and is limited to the speaker’s official participation in the processes of government” … . “The absolute privilege generally is reserved for communications made by individuals participating in a public function, such as executive, legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. This protection is designed to ensure that such persons’ own personal interests—especially fear of a civil action, whether successful or otherwise—do not have an adverse impact upon the discharge of their public function” … .

Here, as a threshold matter, the challenged statements, considered in the context in which they were made, tended to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace.

The challenged statements, which were made in the context of a contested application before a municipal body whose determination is subject to judicial review pursuant to CPLR article 78 …, would ordinarily be subject to absolute privilege… . Nevertheless, the absolute privilege embraces only those statements that may possibly be or become material or pertinent to the matters before the Board, construed under an extremely liberal standard… . Upon our review of the papers and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, we discern “not one scintilla of evidence present upon which to base the possible pertinency of [the] defendant’s statement[s]”… . Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the challenged statements are not subject to an absolute privilege … . Gugliotta v Wilson, 2019 NY Slip Op 00261, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, ,

REMARKS ALLEGED TO BE DEFAMATORY REFLECTED THE RESULTS OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AND WERE THEREFORE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 74 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determination the complaint alleging defamation causes of action against attorneys who had been interviewed about litigation involving plaintiff and Elizabeth Etling, whom the defendant attorneys represented. The court held that the remarks alleged to be defamatory were either protected descriptions of judicial determinations in the case or were otherwise not actionable. With respect to the Civil Rights Law privilege, the court wrote:

Defendants’ comment about plaintiff’s “massive spoliation” or “spoliation in droves” is protected under Civil Rights Law § 74 as a fair and true report, even if the Delaware Chancery Court did not use defendants’ exact words in its decision… . The court concluded that plaintiff had intended and attempted to destroy “a substantial amount of information,” and detailed plaintiff’s responsibility for the deletion, in violation of court order, of approximately 41,000 files from his computer. Plaintiff argues that defendants overstated the matter, because his spoliation proved largely reversible. Indeed, of the 41,000 files deleted, 1,000 were permanently destroyed. However, plaintiff did not cause the recovery of the data; rather, it occurred in spite of him. Moreover, he lied under oath about his spoliating conduct. As the court observed, an unsuccessful spoliator is still a spoliator… .

Defendants’ comment that plaintiff was “holding Elting hostage” is protected under Civil Rights Law § 74. During the interviews at issue, defendants cited the section of the post-trial decision in which the court used similar language in summarizing Elting’s position … . Defendants’ statement that “no rational person would ever want to partner with [plaintiff],” which is nearly a verbatim quotation from the court’s decision, is protected under the statute. Shawe v Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 08550, First Dept 12-13-18

 

, ,

MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the criteria for prior restraint of speech were not met in this action to impose a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order prohibiting the publishing of accusations against plaintiff and offensive images on defendants’ website:

Plaintiff, a law professor, sat on the appellate panel of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) that affirmed the lifetime ban imposed on two stockbrokers, nonparties Talman Harris and William Scholander. Defendants allegedly control a website known as TheBlot, a tabloid-style platform that has published a substantial quantity of material attacking FINRA’s ban of Harris and Scholander and the FINRA personnel, including plaintiff, who were involved in adjudicating that case. The attacks on plaintiff have included — in addition to name-calling, ridicule and various scurrilous accusations — juxtapositions of plaintiff’s likeness to graphic images of the lynching of African Americans, and statements that the banning of Harris, who is African American, constituted a “lynching.”

In this action, plaintiff, who is also African American, seeks, as here relevant, an injunction against the posting on TheBlot of material attacking or libeling him. In this regard, he argues that the lynching images posted alongside photographs of him on TheBlot should be understood as a threat of violence against himself. …

… [T]he preliminary injunction can be affirmed only if it enjoins a “true threat” against plaintiff … . We find, however, that the speech at issue, as offensive as it is, cannot reasonably be construed as truly threatening or inciting violence against plaintiff. Rather, the lynching imagery at issue was plainly intended to draw a grotesque analogy between lynching and FINRA’s banning of Harris, who is an African American (and is identified as such in the posts) … . While this analogy is incendiary and highly inappropriate, plaintiff has not established that any reasonable viewer would have understood the posts as threatening or calling for violence against him. Moreover, even if the posts could reasonably be construed as advocating unlawful conduct, plaintiff has not established that any “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” … . Brummer v Wey, 2018 NY Slip Op 07843, First Dept 11-15-18

DEFAMATION (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAMATION, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FREE SPEECH, PRIOR RESTRAINT, MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/FREE SPEECH (PRIOR RESTRAINT, (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/PRIOR RESTRAINT (FREE SPEECH, (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

STATEMENTS IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S DIVORCE WHICH REFERRED TO PLAINTIFF’S CONVICTION STEMMING FROM A BOILER ROOM PENNY STOCK OPERATION WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defamation action against a newspaper was properly dismissed. A newspaper article about plaintiff’s divorce referred to plaintiff’s criminal conviction stemming from a “boiler room” penny-stock operation and stating that plaintiff “tried to use his old tricks to swindle his estranged wife out of millions of dollars…”. Plaintiff stock operation inspired the movie “Boiler Room:”

“Civil Rights Law § 74 is an affirmative defense to a claim of defamation” … . That section provides that “[a] civil action cannot be maintained against any person, firm or corporation, for the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding, legislative proceeding or other official proceeding” (Civil Rights Law § 74). The privilege afforded by this statute is absolute “and is not defeated by the presence of malice or bad faith” … . “This absolute privilege applies only where the publication is a comment on a judicial, legislative, or other official proceeding . . . and is a fair and true’ report of that proceeding” … .

As to the threshold requirement that the publication purport to comment on a judicial, legislative, or other official proceeding, if the context in which the statements are made makes it impossible for the ordinary viewer, listener, or reader to determine whether the defendant was reporting on a judicial or other official proceeding, the absolute privilege does not apply … .

As to the requirement that the publication be a fair and true report of the official proceeding, the Court of Appeals has recognized that “newspaper accounts of legislative or other official proceedings must be accorded some degree of liberality” … . Accordingly, “[w]hen determining whether an article constitutes a fair and true’ report, the language used therein should not be dissected and analyzed with a lexicographer’s precision”… . Rather, “[f]or a report to be characterized as fair and true’ within the meaning of the statute, thus immunizing its publisher from a civil suit sounding in libel, it is enough that the substance of the article be substantially accurate”… .

Here, the subject newspaper article explicitly stated that it was describing the divorce action commenced against the plaintiff by his former wife … . Furthermore, the defendants’ documentary evidence established, as a matter of law, that the disputed language in the newspaper article was a “fair and true” report of the factual findings made in the divorce action … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, “the inaccuracies cited by the plaintiff were not so egregious as to remove the article from the protection of Civil Rights Law § 74” … . Gillings v New York Post, 2018 NY Slip Op 07413, Second Dept 11-7-18

DEFAMATION (STATEMENTS IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S DIVORCE WHICH REFERRED TO PLAINTIFF’S CONVICTION STEMMING FROM A BOILER ROOM PENNY STOCK OPERATION WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (DEFAMATION, STATEMENTS IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S DIVORCE WHICH REFERRED TO PLAINTIFF’S CONVICTION STEMMING FROM A BOILER ROOM PENNY STOCK OPERATION WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, STATEMENTS IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S DIVORCE WHICH REFERRED TO PLAINTIFF’S CONVICTION STEMMING FROM A BOILER ROOM PENNY STOCK OPERATION WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/NEWSPAPER (DEFAMATION, STATEMENTS IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S DIVORCE WHICH REFERRED TO PLAINTIFF’S CONVICTION STEMMING FROM A BOILER ROOM PENNY STOCK OPERATION WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))

,

STATEMENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF GAS LINES MADE BY DEFENDANT WHO WAS HIRED TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE GAS LEAKS PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants' motion for summary judgment in this defamation and injurious falsehood action should have been granted. The allegedly defamatory statements were made by defendant Dimino who was hired to assess the reasons for gas leaks at a school. The defendant concluded the gas leaks were the result of improper installation of the gas lines by plaintiff. Plaintiff was thereafter prohibited from doing any further school-related work for five years. The statements made about plaintiff's work were deemed protected by qualified common-interest privilege:

… [T]he defendants made a prima facie showing that the challenged statements were protected by the qualified common-interest privilege … . The evidence in the record demonstrated that the letter, which does not reference the plaintiff by name, was written by Dimino at the request of the DOE [Department of Education], and that the defendants did not identify the plumbing company that installed the gas piping at the school. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the challenged statements were motivated solely by malice … . ” Mere conclusory allegations, or charges based upon surmise, conjecture, and suspicion are insufficient to defeat the claim of qualified privilege'”… . Although the plaintiff disputes that its workmanship was poor and that it used lamp wick in the gas pipes at the school, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to support its claims that the defendants made the statements for the purposes of justifying the cost of their repair work and eliminating the plaintiff as a competitor.

For these same reasons, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging injurious falsehood. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants made false statements, maliciously and with the intent to harm it, or recklessly and without regard to their consequences … . In addition, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not tortiously interfere with the plaintiff's business relations. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Dimino made the alleged defamatory statements in the letter for the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff or by using unlawful means … . Franco Belli Plumbing & Heating & Sons, Inc. v Dimino, 2018 NY Slip Op 06083, Second Dept  9-19-18

DEFAMATION (STATEMENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF GAS LINES MADE BY DEFENDANT WHO WAS HIRED TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE GAS LEAKS PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, STATEMENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF GAS LINES MADE BY DEFENDANT WHO WAS HIRED TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE GAS LEAKS PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT))/QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, STATEMENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF GAS LINES MADE BY DEFENDANT WHO WAS HIRED TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE GAS LEAKS PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT))/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, STATEMENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF GAS LINES MADE BY DEFENDANT WHO WAS HIRED TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE GAS LEAKS PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defamation action, based upon a complaint made to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was properly dismissed. The complaint did not include the allegedly defamatory statement (a pleading failure) and the statement enjoyed qualified privilege. A remark posted on the Internet, which stated that defendant (Studer) had “seen and heard” horror stories about plaintiffs' treatment of animals, was nonactionable opinion:

… [W]ith respect to the plaintiffs' contention that Studer was liable for defamation based on the statements she made to the SPCA, since the amended complaint failed to set forth “the particular words complained of,” that branch of Studer's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the defamation cause of action as was based on those statements should have been granted (CPLR 3016[a]…). In any event, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that Studer demonstrated, prima facie, that the allegedly defamatory statements enjoyed a qualified privilege. Protection from defamation is afforded where the person making the statements does so fairly “in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of his [or her] own affairs, in a matter where his [or her] interest is concerned” …  Here, since the evidence establishes that Studer made the statements to the SPCA in a good faith effort to obtain the aid of a law enforcement agency in addressing a potentially unsafe environment which children in her community frequented, the statements are subject to a qualified privilege … . …

We also agree with the Supreme Court's determination to reject the plaintiffs' contention that Studer was liable for defamation based on the Internet post. Studer established, prima facie, that this post constituted a nonactionable expression of opinion inasmuch as it consisted of imprecise, subjective characterizations which could not be objectively verified … . New York Horse Rescue Corp. v Suffolk County Socy. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2018 NY Slip Op 05934, Second Dept 8-29-18

DEFAMATION (DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3016 (DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED PRE-DISCOVERY MOTION TO DISMISS, APPLICABILITY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PRIVILEGE FOR REPORTING ON A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING NOT DEMONSTRATED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant publisher (Bloomberg) was not entitled to dismissal of a defamation action based upon the publication of articles about police investigations of a Hong Kong investment company. The court found that the Civil Rights Law privilege for reporting on a judicial proceeding could not be applied as a matter of law at the pre-discovery stage:

New York Civil Rights Law § 74 states, in pertinent part: “A civil action cannot be maintained . . . for the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding, legislative proceeding or other official proceeding.” Here, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the privilege is inapplicable to reporting on foreign official proceedings … . Nevertheless, we agree with the court’s denial of that branch of Bloomberg’s motion which was to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), inasmuch as the challenged statements were not privileged under Civil Rights Law § 74. When the challenged statements are viewed in context, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the statements provide a substantially accurate reporting of the two police investigations … . Moreover, we agree with the court’s determination that the plaintiff, at this pre-discovery stage, adequately alleged the element of gross irresponsibility … . Stone v Bloomberg L.P., 2018 NY Slip Op 05515, Second Dept 7-25-18

DEFAMATION (DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED PRE-DISCOVERY MOTION TO DISMISS, APPLICABILITY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PRIVILEGE FOR REPORTING ON A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING NOT DEMONSTRATED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED PRE-DISCOVERY MOTION TO DISMISS, APPLICABILITY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PRIVILEGE FOR REPORTING ON A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING NOT DEMONSTRATED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED PRE-DISCOVERY MOTION TO DISMISS, APPLICABILITY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PRIVILEGE FOR REPORTING ON A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING NOT DEMONSTRATED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND 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