Opinion
April 18, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the order is vacated, the jury verdict is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety; and it is further,
Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
This action to recover damages for libel arises out of certain news articles, an editorial column, and a cartoon published in the defendant newspaper, The Rockaway Press, between May and September 1987. The plaintiff, Steven Kaplansky, was the focus of these items. The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff was so well-known in the Rockaways community for his association with the local YM-YWHA as its Executive Director since 1976, and for his other efforts on behalf of the local Queens citizens, that he was a public figure "within the framework of the Rockaways".
The court's ruling meant that the plaintiff had to plead and prove by clear and convincing evidence that the words at issue were substantially false (see, Philadelphia Newspapers v Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 776; Immuno AG. v Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, 245, cert denied 500 U.S. 954; Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283; Silsdorf v Levine, 59 N.Y.2d 8, cert denied 464 U.S. 831; Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart Winston, 42 N.Y.2d 369, 379-380, cert denied 434 U.S. 969). Moreover, the plaintiff could not recover damages for libel unless he also offered clear and convincing proof that the false statements were made with "actual malice" or with a reckless disregard of their falsity (see, New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-280; see also, Harte-Hankes Communications v Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 659; Curtis Publ. Co. v Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 162).
This Court's independent review of the record, as required (see, Mahoney v Adirondack Publ. Co., 71 N.Y.2d 31, 39; accord, Bose Corp. v Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485, 514; Abernathy Closther v Buffalo Broadcasting Co., 176 A.D.2d 300, 303), shows that the plaintiff did not satisfy his burden with respect to any of the causes of action challenged on appeal.
In view of this determination, we need not consider the remaining issues. Sullivan, J.P., Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.