Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106984
| S.D.N.Y. | 2012Background
- Egiazaryan sues Zalmayev for defamation and injurious falsehood; original complaint dismissed several defamation counts, leaving Count I (Zalmayev article) intact.
- Egiazaryan, a Russian politician and banker, alleges a smear campaign by Kerimov and associates funded via Public Strategies and Thomas Dale & Associates after he sought asylum in the U.S.
- Zalmayev directed Eurasia Democracy Initiative and allegedly authored or helped draft multiple articles and letters criticizing Egiazaryan and seeking asylum denial.
- Articles/letters at issue include the Zalmayev article (Jewish Journal), Komarovsky article (Moscow Times), Ponomarev/Alexeyeva letters, and Freedom House letters, with various associations to LDPR and anti-Semitic/anti-American allegations.
- Original complaint alleged these statements as false and actionable; amended complaint retained the four defamation counts but dropped injurious falsehood, prompting a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal after amendment.
- Court follows law-of-the-case and Oilman framework to assess whether statements are statements of fact or opinions, and whether any asserted facts are plausibly false.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Egiazaryan’s public figure status is law of the case | Egiazaryan contends status may be revisited in light of new allegations. | Status remains established as public figure for purposes of defamation. | Egiazaryan is a public figure. |
| Whether statements alleged in Counts I–IV are plausibly false statements of fact | Statements contain false factual predicates about Egiazaryan. | Statements are not plausibly false; many are opinions or substantially true. | Statements are not plausibly false; they are opinions or non-actionable. |
| Whether the asserted statements are protected as opinion under Oilman framework | Some statements are factual and false; could be actionable. | Context and language show opinion rather than factual assertions. | All challenged statements are opinions or non-actionable under context. |
| Whether the Zalmayev article and Komarovsky article contain actionable factual assertions | These articles rank as factual misstatements about Egiazaryan’s LDPR membership and alleged anti-Semitism. | Articles are opinion in an editorial context; membership is substantially true; anti-Semitism claim is opinion. | Zalmayev: opinion; Komarovsky: opinion; not actionable as factual statements. |
| Whether the Ponomarev/Alexeyeva and Freedom House letters support defamation | Letters falsely accuse Egiazaryan of mismanagement and war crimes; imputations are false facts. | Letters are advocacy petitions; contain opinion and calls for investigation; not provably false statements about him. | Letters express opinion; do not constitute actionable false statements about Egiazaryan. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283 (N.Y. 1986) (Oilman factors assess fact vs. opinion; context matters)
- Immuno A.G. v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 285 (N.Y. 1991) (Context primary; letters to editor as opinion)
- Gross v. N.Y. Times Co., 603 N.E.2d 1163 (N.Y. 1993) (Investigative reports may state facts; context signals assertion type)
- Richardson v. New York Times, 637 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1995) (Op-ed context signals opinion; reader interpretation)
- Buckley v. Littell, 539 F.2d 882 (2d Cir. 1976) (Factualness of political context and 'fellow traveler' concept)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (Distinguishes fact vs. opinion in defamation)
- Silsdorf v. Levine, 59 N.Y.2d 8 (N.Y. 1983) (Defamatory opinion analysis and factual basis prerequisite)
- Printers II, Inc. v. Professionals Pub’g, Inc., 784 F.2d 141 (2d Cir. 1986) (Gist of statements; substantial truth standard)
- Cafferty v. S. Tier Publ’g Co., 226 N.Y. 87 (N.Y. 1919) (Early defamation standard; substantial truth notion)