CHARLES HUGGINS, RESPONDENT, v. MELBA MOORE, DEFENDANT, THE DAILY NEWS, L.P.,
ET AL., APPELLANTS.
94 N.Y.2d 296 (1999).
December 20, 1999
1 No. 198
(99 NY Int. 0181)
Decided December 20, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
R. Bruce Rich, for appellants.
Bradley C. Rosen, for respondent.
ABC, Inc., et al., amici curiae.
LEVINE, J.:
Plaintiff Charles Huggins is the former husband of Melba Moore, a
popular actress of the musical stage and recordingartist, having
received a Tony award and two Grammy nominations. Plaintiff brought
this defamation action as a result of three articles written by
defendant Linda Stasi and published in the "Hot Copy" column of
defendant Daily News in 1993. The articles concerned Moore's
allegations of plaintiff's betrayal of trust in their personal and
financial relationships during the dissolution of their marriage. The
series reported how Moore began to speak out as a self-described
victim of "economic spousal abuse," because she believed her husband
had cheated her out of her interest in the entertainment management
company they had built together, leaving her destitute.
The issue on this appeal is whether the content of the three articles
was arguably a matter of legitimate public concern, thereby imposing
upon plaintiff the burden of proving that defendants were "grossly
irresponsible" in writing and publishing them, under Chapadeau v Utica
Observer-Dispatch (38 NY2d 196, 199). We conclude that it was.
Melba Moore married plaintiff in 1976. Huggins acted as her
professional and personal financial manager while running Hush
Productions, Ltd., a firm that managed a number of other nationally
known recording artists.
SNIPPETS:
Plaintiff Charles Huggins is the former husband of Melba Moore, a popular actress of the
Plaintiff brought this defamation action as a result of three articles written by defendant
The series reported how Moore began to speak out as a self-described victim of "economic
The issue on this appeal is whether the content of the three articles was arguably a matter
The first article, published June 11, 1993, recounted why Moore believed she could no longer
Moore subsequently commenced a divorce action in New York,
On July 9, 1993, one day after Moore had obtained an ex parte Temporary Order of Protection
Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants on the ground that the
The Appellate Division modified, holding that several of the statements, in effect accusing
The Appellate Division rejected defendants' claim that plaintiff, in order to prevail, was
Concluding that the parties' divorce and the business arrangement incidental thereto were
Because we conclude that plaintiff must prove that defendants were grossly irresponsible in
Thus, at least with respect to a report on a matter of public concern, private plaintiffs
In response to the Gertz decision, we held in Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch (38 NY2d
To make the determination of whether content is arguably within the sphere of legitimate
Moreover, the fact that the article has been published in a newspaper is not conclusive that
According to the article, one of those patients had "'suffered anervous breakdown that
|
