ALBERT J. MILLUS , RESPONDENT, v. NEWSDAY, INC. , ET AL., APPELLANTS.
89 N.Y.2d 840, 675 N.E.2d 461, 652 N.Y.S.2d 726, 25 Media L. Rep. 1063
(1996).
November 19, 1996
1 No. 223 (1996 NY Int. 221)
Decided November 19, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Robert D. Sack, for Appellants.
Paul F. Millus, for Respondent.
The New York Times Company, et al., amici curiae.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs,
defendants' motion for summary judgment granted, the complaint
dismissed, and the certified question answered in the negative.
Plaintiff commenced this defamation suit against defendants for
publishing an allegedly libelous statement about him in the January
24, 1992 issue of New York Newsday. The statement at issue, which
appeared in an editorial evaluating and endorsing various candidates
for two New York State Assembly positions, declared that the opposing
candidate "is running here against (plaintiff), who admits he doesn't
expect to win and is relieved by the prospect." Plaintiff does not
dispute that when asked if he wanted to win, he replied that he had
two children in college and that the salary of an Assembly member was
$57,000 a year. However, plaintiff denies stating that he would be
relieved if he lost the election.
Defendants moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court granted the
motion and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division, however,
reversed the order of Supreme Court and reinstated the complaint.
Defendants' request for leave to appeal to this Court was granted by
the Appellate Division which certified the question, "Was the order of
the Court, which reversed the order of the Supreme Court, properly
made?"
We reject the contention that defendants' use of "admits" renders the
allegedly defamatory statement one of fact rather than an opinion as a
matter of law. Whether a potentially actionable statement is one of
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Paul F. Millus, for Respondent.
The New York Times Company, et al., amici curiae.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendants' motion for
Plaintiff commenced this defamation suit against defendants for publishing an allegedly
The statement at issue, which appeared in an editorial evaluating and endorsing various
The Appellate Division, however, reversed the order of Supreme Court and reinstated the
We reject the contention that defendants' use of "admits" renders the allegedly defamatory
Whether a potentially actionable statement is one of fact or opinion is a question of law
Moreover, defendants did not quote plaintiff but chose instead to use the word "admits,"
Since opinions may not be subject to private damage actions, summary judgment should have
The substitution of "admits" in the published version of the editorial, for "seems," which
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
|
