Sands v. News America Publishing, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Broich v. McGann

    92 A.D.3d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 4 times

    ated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the challenged statements were entitled to a qualified “common interest” privilege ( Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 437, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344; see Stukuls v. State of New York, 42 N.Y.2d 272, 278–279, 397 N.Y.S.2d 740, 366 N.E.2d 829; Phelan v. Huntington Tri–Vil. Little League, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 503, 504, 868 N.Y.S.2d 737; Golden v. Stiso, 279 A.D.2d 607, 608, 720 N.Y.S.2d 164; Suozzi v. Parente, 202 A.D.2d 94, 101, 616 N.Y.S.2d 355; ATN Marts v. Ireland, 195 A.D.2d 959, 600 N.Y.S.2d 590), and a conditional privilege arising from the plaintiff's status as a public figure ( see Shulman v. Hunderfund, 12 N.Y.3d 143, 147, 878 N.Y.S.2d 230, 905 N.E.2d 1159; Silsdorf v. Levine, 59 N.Y.2d 8, 16–17, 462 N.Y.S.2d 822, 449 N.E.2d 716, cert. denied 464 U.S. 831, 104 S.Ct. 109, 78 L.Ed.2d 111; Cancer Action N.Y. v. St. Lawrence County Newspapers Corp., 12 A.D.3d 880, 880–881, 784 N.Y.S.2d 727; Sands v. News Am. Publ., 237 A.D.2d 177, 655 N.Y.S.2d 18). The affirmation of the plaintiff's attorney in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact with regard to the requisite showing of malice necessary to defeat either privilege ( see Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d at 437–439, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344; Cosme v. Town of Islip, 63 N.Y.2d 908, 909, 483 N.Y.S.2d 205, 472 N.E.2d 1033; James v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 424–425, 386 N.Y.S.2d 871, 353 N.E.2d 834; Liere v. Scully, 79 A.D.3d 821, 822, 912 N.Y.S.2d 690; Sands v. News Am. Publ., 237 A.D.2d at 177–178, 655 N.Y.S.2d 18). Similarly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how further discovery might reveal the existence of material facts that would warrant the denial of the defendants' motion ( see Phelan v. Huntington Tri–Vil. Little League, Inc., 57 A.D.3d at 505, 868 N.Y.S.2d 737; Shover v. Instant Whip Processors, 240 A.D.2d 560, 560–561, 658 N.Y.S.2d 661; Paskiewicz v. National Assn. for Advancement of Colored People, 216 A.D.2d 550, 628 N.Y.S.2d 405

  2. Coliniatis v. Dimas

    965 F. Supp. 511 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)   Cited 6 times
    Stating that "[w]here a plaintiff is a public official, he must prove `by clear and convincing evidence' that the published material is false and that defendant published the material `with actual malice'"

    Sweeney v. Prisoners' Legal Services, Inc., 84 N.Y.2d at 793, 622 N.Y.S.2d 896, 647 N.E.2d 101. Similarly, in Sands v. News America Publishing, Inc., ___ A.D.2d ___, 655 N.Y.S.2d 18, 19 (1997), the Appellate Division found that "[o]n the issue of malice, plaintiff failed to submit evidence of `convincing clarity' that defendants were aware that the article was probably false, and, accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted." In that case, the plaintiff contacted the reporter prior to publication and denied related allegations.

  3. White v. Tarbell

    284 A.D.2d 888 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 4 times

    There is nothing in the record to demonstrate that this is one of those rare cases (cf., Goldreyer Ltd. v. Dow Jones Co., 259 A.D.2d 353). In contrast to Pace v. Rebore ( 107 A.D.2d 30, appeal dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 647), upon which defendant relies, defendant's conclusory allegations of plaintiffs' involvement in politics is unsupported by any evidence of their specific political activities (cf., Sands v. News Am. Publ., 237 A.D.2d 177). More importantly, the record of the case thus far lacks the evidentiary demonstration of public attention contained inPace, where the plaintiffs were shown to "have been the subject of continuing public interest for many years, as evidenced by numerous newspaper articles describing their activities" (Pace v. Rebore, supra, at 33). The fact that one of the plaintiffs here had previously run for public office is also insufficient in and of itself to establish his status as a limited purpose public figure, for there is no evidence of any relationship between his prior candidacies and the particular public controversy that was the subject of defendant's allegedly defamatory statements (cf., Bytner v. Capital Newspaper, Div. of Hearst Corp., 112 A.D.2d 666, 667-668, affd 67 N.Y.2d 914).

  4. Khan v. New York Times Co.

    269 A.D.2d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 32 times
    Noting that defendant concedes falsity and only challenges the finding of actual malice

    Thus, although the complaining prisoner was a convicted felon and presumably lacked credibility, the Court held that, in the absence of evidence that defendants were aware that the prisoner's complaint was probably false, they could not be found to have harbored an intent to avoid the truth. Similarly, in Sands v. News America Publishing, Inc. ( 237 A.D.2d 177), a case in which the plaintiff contacted the reporter prior to publication and denied related allegations, this Court concluded that plaintiff had failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. In light of the foregoing, the IAS court erred in denying defendants summary judgment on plaintiff's first two causes of action for libel and those causes of action should have been dismissed.