You are here: / Defamation
,

MANY STATEMENTS MADE BY A FORMER NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCERNING A FORMER CEO OF AIG DEEMED ACTIONABLE IN THIS DEFAMATION SUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined certain statements made by defendant Eliot Spitzer (former New York Attorney General) concerning Hank Greenberg (former CEO of AIG) supported defamation causes of action. The opinion went through the long list of statements alleged to be defamatory in the complaint in the context of Spitzer’s motions to dismiss. Many, but not all, of the statements were found actionable and the complaint was deemed to have adequately alleged the actionable statements were made with malice:

This appeal presents an opportunity to discuss in some detail the proper application of CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) in the context of an action sounding in defamation. * * *

“Since falsity is a necessary element of a defamation cause of action and only facts’ are capable of being proven false, it follows that only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action'”… .Thus, “[a]n expression of pure opinion is not actionable, . . . no matter how vituperative or unreasonable it may be” … .

“A pure opinion may take one of two forms. It may be a statement of opinion which is accompanied by a recitation of the facts upon which it is based, or it may be an opinion not accompanied by such a factual recitation so long as it does not imply that it is based upon undisclosed facts” … . Conversely, “an opinion that implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it, is a mixed opinion and is actionable” … .

“Whether a particular statement constitutes an opinion or an objective fact is a question of law” … . “In distinguishing between facts and opinion, the factors the court must consider are (1) whether the specific language has a precise meaning that is readily understood; (2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and (3) whether the context in which the statement appears signals to readers [or listeners] that the statement is likely to be opinion, not fact” … . “The essential task is to decide whether the words complained of, considered in the context of the entire communication and of the circumstances in which they were spoken or written, may be reasonably understood as implying the assertion of undisclosed facts justifying the opinion” … . Greenberg v Spitzer, 2017 NY Slip Op 06432, Second Dept 9-13-17

 

, ,

COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that, although the common interest privilege applied to the allegedly defamatory statements, the allegations of malice were sufficient to overcome the privilege in the context of a motion to dismiss. The court noted that no evidence of malice need be presented at the motion-to-dismiss stage:

“To state a cause of action to recover damages for defamation, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant published a false statement, without privilege or authorization, to a third party, constituting fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and it must either cause special harm or constitute defamation per se”…. . “A communication made by one person to another upon a subject in which both have an interest is protected by a qualified privilege”… . However, this “common-interest privilege” may be overcome by a showing of malice … . “To establish the malice’ necessary to defeat the privilege, the plaintiff may show either common-law malice, i.e., spite or ill will,’ or may show actual malice,’ i.e., knowledge of falsehood of the statement or reckless disregard for the truth” … .

Here, * * * the common-interest privilege applies to the allegedly defamatory communications… . However, accepting the facts as alleged in the amended complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference …, the amended complaint sufficiently alleges malice to overcome the privilege… . “[A] plaintiff has no obligation to show evidentiary facts to support [his or her] allegations of malice on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) … . Ferrara v Bank, 2017 NY Slip Op 06161, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

DEFAMATION (COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT))/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DEFAMATION, MALICE, COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT))/MALICE (DEFAMATION, COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED WHETHER DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS WERE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY MALICE, THEREBY OVERCOMING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, AND WERE MADE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, THEREBY RENDERING THE EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE.

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the defamation causes of action properly survived summary judgment with respect to the speaker (Cramer) and the defamation causes of action against Cramer’s employers (the village and fire department), based upon vicarious liability, should not have been dismissed. Cramer had made statements to her employer that plaintiff was a child molester and she had tapes to prove it. There was evidence the statements were motivated solely by malice (and therefore not protected by qualified immunity) and were made within the scope of Cramer’s employment:

We conclude that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that any alleged statements are protected by a qualified privilege inasmuch as they were made between members of the organization in connection with plaintiff’s application for membership, and thus “the burden shifted to plaintiff[] to raise a triable issue of fact whether the statements were motivated solely by malice’ ” … . “If [Cramer’s] statements were made to further the interest protected by the privilege, it matters not that [she] also despised plaintiff. Thus, a triable issue is raised only if a jury could reasonably conclude that malice was the one and only cause for the publication’ ” … . Plaintiff provided the deposition testimony of the assistant fire chief, who testified that Cramer told him to “go tell [plaintiff] for me that if he continues with this application I’m going to pull out tapes that I have that shows he’s a child molester and that it’s going to ruin his life.” Plaintiff also provided the deposition testimony of a woman who was at the Fire Department … and heard Cramer call plaintiff a “child molester”; that same witness heard Cramer call plaintiff a pedophile in 2011. A Fire Department employee testified in his deposition that he heard Cramer say to her husband that she had proof that plaintiff was a “child molester.” In light of that evidence, we therefore conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether Cramer’s statements were motivated solely by malice and thus are not protected by a qualified privilege.

“An employer may be held vicariously liable for an allegedly slanderous statement made by an employee only if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time that the statement was made”… . We further conclude that defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law that Cramer was not acting within the scope of her employment when she allegedly made the statements to the assistant fire chief and/or at the meeting … . Stevenson v Cramer, 2017 NY Slip Op 05353, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK POSTED ON YELP WAS OPINION, NOT ACTIONABLE LIBEL.

The Second Department determined that a review of plaintiff’s work at defendant’s home posted on Yelp was not actionable as libel per se. The review was an expression of opinion by a dissatisfied customer:

After the plaintiff installed a custom home theater system in the defendant’s home, the defendant posted a review of the services she received from the plaintiff on the Internet website Yelp.com. The plaintiff commenced this action, alleging, among other things, that the review constituted libel per se. The defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss that cause of action. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendant’s motion.

A “libel action cannot be maintained unless it is premised on published assertions of fact” … . Whether an allegedly defamatory statement constitutes actionable fact or nonactionable opinion is a question of law to be resolved by the courts … . In resolving that question, “[r]ather than sifting through a communication for the purpose of isolating and identifying assertions of fact,” the courts should “consider the content of the communication as a whole,” and “look to the over-all context in which the assertions were made” to determine ” whether the reasonable reader would have believed that the challenged statements were conveying facts about the libel plaintiff'”… .

Here, given the context in which the challenged statements were made and viewing the content of the review as a whole, a reasonable reader would have believed that the writer of the review was a dissatisfied customer who utilized the Yelp website to express an opinion … . Crescendo Designs, Ltd. v Reses, 2017 NY Slip Op 05198, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

, ,

UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBEL PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION.

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s awards of damages (upon defendant’s default) for libel per se and abuse of process, as well as punitive damages and attorney’s fees. The Third Department determined the causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of privacy were not viable, and Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue an order of protection. Plaintiff alleged defendant had contacted his employers making false allegations and had initiated many actions against him raising issues already litigated. With respect to intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of privacy, and the order of protection, the court explained:

A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be entertained “where the conduct complained of falls well within the ambit of other traditional tort liability” … . Here, plaintiff’s complaint incorporated his libel and abuse of process allegations as the basis for this cause of action. Because damages were awarded on those causes of action, the damages awarded on the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be vacated.

A cause of action for violation of the right to privacy under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and [*4]51 is “strictly limited to nonconsensual commercial appropriations of the name, portrait or picture of a living person” … . Absent from the proof furnished by plaintiff was any indication that defendant sought to use his name or photograph “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade only” … . Therefore, Supreme Court should have determined that this was not a viable cause of action. …

Supreme Court can properly issue an order of protection in a matrimonial action under Domestic Relations Law §§ 240, 252 … ; here, no matrimonial action was pending. Although such an order is available under Family Ct Act article 8, the pleadings do not contain allegations of conduct that would constitute one of certain enumerated family offenses … . Xiaokang Xu v Xioling Shirley He, 2017 NY Slip Op 01412, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

 

DEFAMATION (UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBLE PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION)/LIBEL PER SE (UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBLE PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION)/ABUSE OF PROCESS (UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBLE PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION)/PRIVACY, VIOLATION OF (UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBLE PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION)/INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBLE PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION)/ORDER OF PROTECTION (UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBLE PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION)

,

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, over a dissenting opinion, reversing Supreme Court, determined proceedings before the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) are quasi-judicial in nature and statements made during the proceedings are therefore protected by absolute, not qualified, privilege. The defamation cause of action should have been dismissed:

The statements that form the basis of the defamation claim at issue here were made to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigator in the course of an investigation. … Given both the nature of an FDA investigation into the propriety of the hospital’s research protocols and the importance of the unimpeded flow of thoughts and information in this investigative context, as a matter of law and public policy, statements to such an investigator must be protected by an absolute privilege, not merely a qualified privilege. * * *

The statements at issue here were made to an FDA investigator looking into accusations that IRB (hospital Institutional Review Board) protocols at NYDH (New York Downtown Hospital) might not be properly handled. The FDA is an administrative agency of the federal government, charged with many responsibilities, including ensuring that new drug trials are handled properly. The complicated regulatory scheme for oversight by the FDA over the operation of IRBs in conducting new drug protocols, controlled by 21 CFR part 56, includes provision for procedures where an FDA investigator observes apparent noncompliance with these regulations in the operation of an IRB. Under these regulations, the IRB and parent institution are informed of those observations, and a response describing the corrective actions to be taken is required (see 21 CFR 56.120[a]). If it is determined that the IRB or the institution has failed to take adequate steps to correct the noncompliance, and the FDA Commissioner determines that this noncompliance may justify the disqualification of the IRB or of the parent institution, “the Commissioner will institute proceedings in accordance with the requirements for a regulatory hearing set forth in part 16” (21 CFR 56.121). Of course, the regulatory scheme explicitly provides for court review of final administrative actions taken by the Commissioner (see 21 CFR 10.45[a]).

It is therefore clear that the procedures created by these regulations of IRBs, which include the possibilities of an adversarial regulatory hearing before the FDA (see 27 CFR 156.121[a]) and subsequent judicial review (see 21 CFR 10.45), qualify as a quasi-judicial process by an administrative agency, Stega v New York Downtown Hosp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00139, 1st Dept 1-10-17

 

DEFAMATION (PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE)/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE)/ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE)/QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (DEFAMATION, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE)

, ,

COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

The Third Department, partially reversing Supreme Court, determined several statements in this defamation action were not merely opinions and were therefore actionable against the defendant who made the statements in a letter to town officials. The republication of the defamatory statements as well as other statements by town officials were entitled to either absolute privilege or qualified immunity.  The decision includes substantive discussions of the elements of defamation, opinion versus fact, mixed opinion and fact, absolute immunity and qualified immunity, which cannot be fairly summarized here. With regard to (actionable) fact versus (nonactionable) opinion, the court explained:

It is well settled that, “[s]ince falsity is a necessary element of a defamation cause of action and only facts are capable of being proven false, only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action” … . “Distinguishing actionable fact from a protected expression of opinion is a question of law in which several factors are weighed, including whether the allegedly defamatory words have a precise meaning that is readily understood, whether the statement can be proven as true or false, and whether the context and surrounding circumstances would indicate that the comment is an opinion” … .

While a pure expression of opinion is not actionable, a “mixed opinion” — i.e., one that “‘implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it'” — can be the subject of a defamation claim … . “Rather than sifting through a communication for the purpose of isolating and identifying assertions of fact,” we must “look to the over-all context in which the assertions were made and determine on that basis whether the reasonable reader would have believed that the challenged statements were conveying facts about the plaintiff” … . Hull v Town of Prattsville, 2016 NY Slip Op 08917, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

DEFAMATION (COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/MUNICIPAL LAW (DEFAMATION, COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, TOWN OFFICIALS, COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/IMMUNITY (DEFAMATION, TOWN OFFICIALS, COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)

, ,

STATEMENT IN SUMMONS WITH NOTICE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED.

The Second Department determined the statement in a summons with notice alleging a mortgage was obtained by fraud was protected by judicial-proceedings privilege:

Generally, statements made at all stages of a judicial proceeding in communications among the parties, witnesses, counsel, and the court are accorded an absolute privilege, as long as the statements may be considered in some way “pertinent” to the issue in the proceeding … . This privilege, or “immunity” … , applies to statements made in or out of court, on or off the record, and regardless of the motive with which they were made … .

The test of pertinency to the litigation is extremely liberal, so as to embrace anything that may possibly or plausibly be relevant or pertinent … . The purpose of the privilege is to allow the parties, witnesses, and attorneys in a litigation to communicate freely without fear of defamation litigation … . Weinstock v Sanders, 2016 NY Slip Op 07947, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

 

DEFAMATION (STATEMENT IN SUMMONS WITH NOTICE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED)/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, STATEMENT IN SUMMONS WITH NOTICE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED)/IMMUNITY (DEFAMATION, STATEMENT IN SUMMONS WITH NOTICE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED)

STATEMENTS ALLEGING MAFIA INVOLVEMENT IN A STRIP CLUB WERE NOT “OF AND CONCERNING” INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS WHO PROVIDED FOOD, BEVERAGE AND TALENT SERVICES TO THE CLUB.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, determined a defamation suit was properly dismissed because the alleged defamatory remarks were not “of and concerning” the plaintiffs. Television news broadcasts claimed that the Cheetah Club, a strip club, was involved in human trafficking orchestrated by the mafia. The story claimed women from Russia and Eastern Europe were brought into this country, set up with sham marriages to American citizens, and then forced to dance at the club. The plaintiffs, Times Square Restaurant Group, Times Square Restaurant No. 1 and individual plaintiffs associated with the Times Square plaintiffs, O’Neill, Callahan and Stein, provided management and talent services to the Cheetah Club. Only the individual plaintiffs, O’Neill, Callahan and Stein, appealed the dismissal of the defamation complaint:

In order to establish a prima facie case of defamation, plaintiffs must show that the matter published is “of and concerning” them … . Although it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to be named in the publication, they must plead and prove that the statement referred to them and that a person hearing or reading the statement reasonably could have interpreted it as such … . This burden is not a light one, and the question of whether an allegedly defamatory statement could reasonably be interpreted to be “of and concerning” a particular plaintiff is a question of law for the courts to decide … .

Accepting as true each and every allegation in the complaint, the challenged statements were not of and concerning plaintiffs O’Neill, Callahan and Stein. The news broadcast stated that Cheetah’s was purportedly used by the mafia to carry out a larger trafficking scheme. It did not mention any employees of the club or of the management and talent agencies that facilitate its daily operations, let alone the individual plaintiffs in these appeals, who were not identified or pictured in the report. In context, the statement that Cheetah’s was “run by the mafia” could not reasonably have been understood to mean that certain unnamed individuals who do not work for Cheetah’s but oversee its food, beverage and talent services are members of organized crime … . Nor did the challenged statements describe a particular, specifically-defined group of individuals who “run” the Cheetah Club, such that the small group libel doctrine would apply … . Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, defendants’ broadcast referred only to the club and failed to include sufficient particulars of identification in order to be actionable by an individual … . Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 06941, CtApp 10-25-16

 

DEFAMATION (STATEMENTS ALLEGING MAFIA INVOLVEMENT IN A STRIP CLUB WERE NOT “OF AND CONCERNING” INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS WHO PROVIDED FOOD, BEVERAGE AND TALENT SERVICES TO THE CLUB)

SERIOUS-CRIME DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department determined the “serious crime” defamation per se cause of action should have been dismissed. The defamation action stemmed from a letter written to a federal judge by the defendant, in connection with plaintiff-corporation’s pleading guilty to a violation of the Clean Water Act:

Supreme Court erred in denying that part of her pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) insofar as the complaint alleged that defendant committed defamation per se by “charging plaintiff[s] with a serious crime” … . We conclude that certain statements in the letter alleging criminal conduct on the part of plaintiffs do not constitute defamation per se because “reference to extrinsic facts is necessary to give them a defamatory import” … , and that other statements, e.g., accusing plaintiffs of terrorism, do not constitute defamation per se because they are “likely to be perceived as rhetorical hyperbole [or] a vigorous epithet’ ” … . Crane-Hogan Structural Sys., Inc. v Belding, 2016 NY Slip Op 06376, 4th Dept 9-30-16

DEFAMATION (SERIOUS-CRIME DEFAMATION PER SE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

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