From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Armstrong v. Simon Schuster, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 27, 2001
280 A.D.2d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

February 27, 2001.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered October 18, 1999, which, upon the prior grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

David Simon, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert F. Cusumano, for defendants-respondents.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin, Saxe, JJ.


Plaintiff, a well-known criminal defense attorney who has held a series of public appointments and represented a variety of high-profile individuals, has not hesitated to seek media attention, and did so repeatedly to influence public opinion in connection with his representation of an individual embroiled in a highly publicized insider trading prosecution, which prosecution was a principal subject of the book in which the allegedly libelous passage about plaintiff was published by defendants. Plaintiff was thus properly found by the motion court to be a limited public figure for purposes of this litigation (see, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345; James v. Gannett Co., Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 421-422; Krauss v. Globe Intl., Inc., 251 A.D.2d 191, 192). Given his limited public figure status, plaintiff was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the complained of passage in defendants' book, in addition to being substantially false and defamatory, was published with actual malice, i.e., with "knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not" (see, New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280; Freeman v. Johnston, 84 N.Y.2d 52, 57, cert denied 513 U.S. 1016; Khan v. The New York Times Co., Inc., 269 A.D.2d 74, 77-79). Since plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue as to whether the allegedly libelous passage was, in fact, published with actual malice, defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Armstrong v. Simon Schuster, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 27, 2001
280 A.D.2d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Armstrong v. Simon Schuster, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL F. ARMSTRONG, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SIMON SCHUSTER, INC., ETC.…

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

Date published: Feb 27, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 340

Citing Cases

New York City Campaign Finance Board v. Lynn

A showing of malice is particularly required where, as here, the alleged defamatory statement concerns a…

DiBella v. Hopkins

The New York Appellate Divisions — with the exception of the Fourth Department, which does not appear to have…