Caprotti v. Town of Woodstock, 2005 NY Slip Op 08996 (2005)
r
r
Under 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a), a municipality is immune from monetary liability for claims arising from the regulation of cable service, even if that regulation involves allowing defamatory content to be broadcast.
r
r
Summary
r
The plaintiffs sued the Town of Woodstock, alleging defamation by a programmer on the town’s public access channel. The programmer, Rybacki, allegedly defamed the plaintiffs on his show, and the town refused to stop the broadcasts despite complaints. The New York Court of Appeals held that 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) immunized the town from monetary liability because the claim arose from the town’s regulation of cable service. The court reasoned that the town’s decision to allow the broadcasts to continue, despite their allegedly defamatory content, constituted a regulatory decision covered by the statute’s broad immunity provision.
r
r
Facts
r
r
The Town of Woodstock granted Kingston Cablevision a franchise agreement that required the cable company to provide public access channels. The town then promulgated regulations for the use of these channels, delegating management to the Woodstock Public Access Committee (WPAC). These regulations prohibited libel and slander. Ronald Rybacki hosted a public access show during which he allegedly defamed Elizabeth Caprotti and her sons. Despite complaints, the town did not stop Rybacki’s broadcasts. Rybacki was criminally prosecuted and an order of protection issued prohibiting him from discussing plaintiffs on the air. Caprotti and her sons sued the town and related parties for defamation.r
r
r
Procedural History
r
r
The plaintiffs sued the Town of Woodstock, members of the Town Board, the WPAC, members of the WPAC, the channel’s station manager, and Rybacki. Rybacki defaulted. Supreme Court held that 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) immunized the municipal defendants from monetary liability. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.r
r
r
Issue(s)
r
r
Whether 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) immunizes a municipality from liability for monetary damages in a defamation claim arising from the municipality’s decision to allow allegedly defamatory programming to continue on a public access channel.r
r
r
Holding
r
r
Yes, because the municipality’s decision to allow the broadcasts to continue constituted a regulatory decision within the scope of the immunity granted by 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a).r
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
r
The court relied on the plain language of 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a), which grants broad immunity from monetary liability for claims arising from the regulation of cable television. The court reasoned that the town’s decision to allow Rybacki’s broadcasts to continue, despite complaints, constituted a regulatory decision. The court emphasized that its role was not to determine whether the municipality’s decision was correct, but rather whether the municipality was engaged in