Kipper v. NYP Holdings Co., Inc., 12 N.Y.3d 348 (2009)

In a defamation suit brought by a public figure, the plaintiff must present clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published a false statement with “actual malice,” meaning with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth.

Summary

Dr. Kipper, a public figure, sued the New York Post for libel after it erroneously reported that his medical license had been revoked. The Post’s article was based on a Los Angeles Times wire service story accurately stating the California Medical Board had “moved to revoke” his license. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the Post, finding no clear and convincing evidence that the Post acted with actual malice. The Court emphasized that mere negligence or failure to investigate is insufficient; the plaintiff must show the publisher entertained serious doubts about the truth or acted with a high degree of awareness of probable falsity.

Facts

The New York Post published a rewrite of a Los Angeles Times wire service article about Dr. Kipper, Ozzy Osbourne’s former physician. The Times article stated that the California Medical Board had