Davis v. Boeheim, 24 N.Y.3d 262 (2014)
Statements that accuse someone of lying and acting with malicious intent can be considered statements of fact, especially when the speaker implies knowledge of undisclosed facts supporting their accusations.
Summary
Robert Davis and Michael Lang sued Syracuse University and its basketball coach, James Boeheim, for defamation after Boeheim publicly accused them of lying about being sexually abused by a former coach, Bernie Fine. The plaintiffs argued that Boeheim’s statements implied he had undisclosed facts supporting his accusations that they were motivated by money. The Court of Appeals held that Boeheim’s statements could be reasonably interpreted as conveying facts, not just opinions, especially considering his position of authority and access to information. This ruling reversed the lower court’s dismissal, allowing the case to proceed to discovery to fully evaluate the claims.
Facts
Davis and Lang alleged they were sexually abused by Bernie Fine, a Syracuse University basketball coach, starting in the 1980s. They reported the abuse to authorities and the university, but no action was taken. Years later, after the Penn State University scandal involving similar allegations, ESPN reported Davis and Lang’s claims. Boeheim, Fine’s long-time friend and colleague, publicly defended Fine and accused Davis and Lang of lying and seeking financial gain, implying they were motivated by the Penn State case.
Procedural History
Davis and Lang sued Boeheim and Syracuse University for defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(7), arguing Boeheim’s statements were non-actionable opinion. Supreme Court granted the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order, finding the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for defamation.
Issue(s)
Whether Boeheim’s statements that Davis and Lang were liars seeking money constitute non-actionable opinion or potentially defamatory statements of fact or mixed opinion.
Holding
Yes, because Boeheim’s statements could be reasonably interpreted by a reader as conveying facts about the plaintiffs, specifically, that they lied about the abuse for financial gain, and that Boeheim’s statements implied a basis in undisclosed facts supporting those accusations.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court applied a three-factor test to determine whether the statements were fact or opinion, considering: 1) whether the language had a precise, readily understood meaning; 2) whether the statements could be proven true or false; and 3) whether the context signaled opinion rather than fact. The court found the first two factors favored treating Boeheim’s statements as factual. On the third factor, the court considered the context: Boeheim was a respected figure within the university and community, and his statements implied access to information not available to the general public. Boeheim’s statements were made during a media investigation, lending more credibility to his assertions. The court noted, “[Boeheim’s] assertions that Davis previously made the same claims, for the same purpose, communicated that Boeheim was relying on undisclosed facts that would justify Boeheim’s statements that Davis and Lang were neither credible nor victims of sexual abuse.” While Boeheim denied knowledge of facts and used phrases like “I believe,” the court found that a reasonable reader could still interpret his statements as supported by undisclosed facts. The court emphasized that, at the motion to dismiss stage, the standard is whether *any* reasonable reading of the complaint supports a defamation claim. Because the complaint met this minimum pleading requirement, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and allowed the case to proceed.