ALEXANDER G. LUNNEY, &C., APPELLANT, v. PRODIGY SERVICES COMPANY, &C.,
RESPONDENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
94 N.Y.2d 242 (1999).
December 2, 1999
2 No. 164
(99 NY Int. 0165)
Decided December 2, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Thomas V. Marino, for appellant.
Michael J. Silverberg, for respondent.
National Law Center for Children and Families et al.,
amici curiae.
ROSENBLATT, J.:
Usurping the name of Alexander Lunney (a teenage Boy Scout and infant
plaintiff in this appeal), an unknown imposter opened a number of
accounts with Prodigy Services Company ("Prodigy"), an Internet
Service Provider ("ISP"). The imposter posted two vulgar messages in
Lunney's name on a Prodigy bulletin board and sent a threatening,
profane electronic mail ("e-mail") message in Lunney's name to a third
person. Lunney, by his father, has sued Prodigy, asserting that he has
been stigmatized by being falsely cast as the author of these
messages. (n.1) The principal issues before us are whether, under
these circumstances, Prodigy may be held liable for defamation or
negligence. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the complaint
against Prodigy was properly dismissed.
I. Background
On September 9, 1994, after opening several membership accounts with
Prodigy under slightly different variants of the name Alex or
Alexander Lunney, the imposter transmitted an e-mail message, under
Lunney's name, to a local scoutmaster. The subject line of the message
read "HOW I'M GONNA'KILL U"; the body was vulgar in the extreme. After
receiving the e-mail, the scoutmaster alerted the Bronxville police,
as well as Lunney's scoutmaster. They investigated the matter, and
readily accepted Lunney's denial of authorship, and his innocence in
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Usurping the name of Alexander Lunney (a teenage Boy Scout and infant plaintiff in this
The imposter posted two vulgar messages in Lunney's name on a Prodigy bulletin board and sent
The principal issues before us are whether, under these circumstances, Prodigy may be held
Supreme Court denied Prodigy's three motions forsummary judgment.
The Appellate Division expressed doubt on the point, considering that defamation cases most
For purposes of this opinion we will assume that although he was not directly attacked,
In a thoughtful opinion by Justice Bracken, the Appellate Division went on to hold that even
As one commentator explained, "o transmit a message, one must have access to an on-line
In Anderson v New York Tel. Co., this Court was asked to determine whether a telephone
Anderson also holds that even if the telephone company could be counted as a publisher, it
The public would not be well served by compelling an ISP to examine and screen millions of
In many respects, an ISP bulletin board may serve much the same purpose as its ancestral
Some electronic bulletin boards post messages instantly and automatically, o thers briefly
The Appellate Division aptly concluded that even if Prodigy "exercised the power to exclude
|
