53 N.Y.2d 625 (1981)

A publisher’s admission of failing to meet professional standards in information gathering, coupled with a factually false publication, can constitute sufficient evidence of actual malice to defeat a motion for summary judgment in a defamation case, even if a retraction is published.

Summary

Robert Kerwick sued Orange County Publications for defamation based on a factually false editorial. The publisher moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of actual malice. The editor admitted his information gathering fell below professional standards by relying on memory instead of research. The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the editor’s admission constituted sufficient evidence to require a trial on the issue of malice, despite the publication of a retraction. The court found a question of fact existed that should be decided by a trial.

Facts

Orange County Publications published an editorial about Robert Kerwick that contained factually false information. Kerwick sued for defamation. The publisher moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of actual malice in publishing the editorial. During pre-trial examination, the publisher’s editor admitted his conduct regarding the editorial’s factual content failed to meet professional standards for information gathering and dissemination, specifically citing reliance on memory rather than research.

Procedural History

The trial court granted the publisher’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment. Kerwick appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a publisher’s admission that its information gathering fell below professional standards, combined with a factually false publication, constitutes sufficient evidence of actual malice to preclude summary judgment in a defamation action, even where a retraction was published.

Holding

Yes, because the editor’s admission, “unaccompanied by any explanation or justification, constituted evidentiary proof in admissible form showing facts sufficient to require a trial on the issue of malice.”

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the editor’s explicit admission that his information gathering did not meet professional standards created a factual issue regarding actual malice that warranted a trial. The court emphasized that the admission was “unaccompanied by any explanation or justification,” suggesting the editor’s conduct might have been more understandable or defensible. The court acknowledged that publishing a retraction could be considered evidence of a lack of malice, but it was not enough to resolve the question as a matter of law. The court determined a jury should decide whether the defendant acted with the requisite malice, stating that on a motion for summary judgment it was not disputed that the editorial was factually false.