Gallo v. Bartelemucci, 64 N.Y.2d 898 (1985)

In defamation cases involving matters of public concern, a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence demonstrating the falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

Summary

This case concerns a defamation action brought by a minor plaintiff against a newspaper and an individual defendant (Bartelemucci) for publishing letters that allegedly falsely accused him of criminal conduct. The New York Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff failed to meet their burden of establishing that the defamatory statements were false. The court emphasized that when faced with a motion for summary judgment supported by affidavits attesting to the accuracy of the statements, the plaintiff must offer evidentiary proof, typically through someone with direct knowledge, to demonstrate falsity. Reliance on a verified complaint by someone without personal knowledge (the plaintiff’s mother in this case) is insufficient to raise a question of fact.

Facts

Plaintiffs commenced a defamation action based on letters written by defendant Bartelemucci and printed in a newspaper published by Poughkeepsie Newspapers, Inc. The letters described the 17-year-old infant plaintiff’s conduct and criticized the police and courts’ handling of charges against him. The newspaper defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits from employees alleging the accuracy of the published statements. The plaintiffs opposed the motion with a verified complaint by the infant plaintiff’s mother but offered no affidavit from the infant or anyone else with direct knowledge of the underlying events.

Procedural History

The Poughkeepsie Newspapers, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and also for summary judgment. The Appellate Division granted defendant Bartelemucci’s motion to dismiss the negligence cause of action but denied it as to the remaining causes of action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, granting the newspaper’s motion for summary judgment and upholding the dismissal of the negligence claim against Bartelemucci.

Issue(s)

1. Whether, in a defamation action, a plaintiff can defeat a motion for summary judgment by relying solely on a verified complaint from someone without personal knowledge of the underlying facts, when the defendant presents affidavits asserting the truth of the statements.
2. Whether an individual defendant who is treated as the newspaper is liable for ordinary negligence, or only for grossly irresponsible conduct.

Holding

1. No, because when a defendant moving for summary judgment in a defamation case submits affidavits claiming the accuracy of the statements, the plaintiff must offer evidence from someone with personal knowledge to demonstrate falsity.
2. No, because the plaintiff conceded that under the circumstances, the individual defendant is charged with the same duty of care as the newspaper, which is to avoid grossly irresponsible conduct.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that once the newspaper presented affidavits alleging the accuracy of the published statements, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate falsity. The Court cited Fairley v. Peekskill Star Corp., 83 AD2d 294, 297, and Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 116, at 839 et seq., emphasizing the plaintiff’s responsibility to establish falsity. The court found the mother’s verified complaint insufficient because she lacked personal knowledge of the facts. The court emphasized that while a verified pleading can serve as an affidavit under CPLR 105(t), it’s inadequate when the affiant lacks direct knowledge of the events in question. As stated in the decision, “[T]he infant’s mother did not have personal knowledge of the incident and her verified complaint was not sufficient to raise a question of fact on the issue of falsity.” Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted to the newspaper.

Regarding Bartelemucci, the court noted the plaintiff’s concession that she should be held to the same standard as the newspaper which is liability only for grossly irresponsible conduct, citing Gaeta v New York News, 62 NY2d 340 and Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 NY2d 196. Therefore, the negligence cause of action against her was correctly dismissed.