From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lazore v. NYP Holdings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 7, 2009
61 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 261.

April 7, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered October 17, 2008, which, in an action for defamation by the lone three voting members of the Tribal Council of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, an Upstate New York tribe that numbers approximately 2,700 individuals, denied defendant New York Post's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendant's favor dismissing the complaint.

Hogan Hartson LLP, New York (Slade R. Metcalf of counsel), for appellant.

Barr Associates, P.C., New York (Daniel A. Seff of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.


The offending editorials essentially asserted that the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe should not be permitted to run a proposed casino because it "amounts to a criminal enterprise," having regularly engaged in many criminal activities, including drug, alcohol, cigarette and alien smuggling, as well as shootouts with law enforcement both in the United States and Canada. The editorials frequently referred to "the tribe" and "the Mohawks" but did not mention the Tribal Council or plaintiffs individually. Plaintiffs allege that it can be reasonably inferred that the editorials were "of and concerning" the governing body of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, i.e., the Tribal Council, i.e., the three plaintiffs. We dismiss the complaint because, even accepting such inference, the offending statements were directed against a governing body and how it governed, rather than against its individual members; there were no statements that the Tribal Council members were individually corrupt or individually promoting a criminal enterprise ( see New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 292; Rosenblatt v Baer, 383 US 75, 82-83). In this respect, disclosure cannot avail plaintiffs ( see Ravenna v Christie's Inc., 289 AD2d 15, 16).


Summaries of

Lazore v. NYP Holdings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 7, 2009
61 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Lazore v. NYP Holdings, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA A. LAZORE et al., Respondents, v. NYP HOLDINGS, INC., Doing…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 7, 2009

Citations

61 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2672
876 N.Y.S.2d 59

Citing Cases

Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v. CBS News, Inc.

The challenged reports do not state that all or even any employees of Cheetah's are members of organized…

Nation v. Showtime Networks Inc.

Plaintiffs allege that in an episode of the television series Billions they were falsely portrayed as having…