Summary
In Robart v. Post-Standard (52 N.Y.2d 843, affg 74 A.D.2d 963), the Court of Appeals affirmed an order of the Appellate Division granting summary judgment to the defendant whose reporter had obtained an inaccurate story from an officer at a police barracks. Reliance on the report did not demonstrate gross irresponsibility, the Appellate Division had stated, "even though the report given by the officer later proved to be inaccurate" (74 A.D.2d 963, supra).
Summary of this case from Carlucci v. Poughkeepsie Newspapers, Inc.Opinion
Argued December 15, 1980
Decided January 8, 1981
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, DOMINICK J. VISCARDI, J.
J. Byron O'Connell and Lois M. Webb for appellant.
S. Paul Battaglia for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiff engaged in conduct which was within the sphere of legitimate public concern. Therefore, even though defendant's report of plaintiff's encounter with the authorities was not entirely accurate, no recovery can be had in defamation absent a showing that defendant "acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties." (Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 N.Y.2d 196, 199.) In our opinion, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of a question of fact on this issue.
In light of our conclusion that plaintiff is, as a matter of law, unable to recover, it is unnecessary for us to determine whether she was required to plead and prove special damages and whether the "libel" asserted was a libel per se.
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.