Fradkoff v. Winston
1:24-cv-01830
S.D.N.Y.Jun 23, 2025Background
- Serge Fradkoff was a long-time employee of the Harry Winston jewelry company, working closely with both the founder and his son, Ronald Winston.
- In 2023, Ronald Winston and William Stadiem co-authored a book, "King of Diamonds," published by Simon & Schuster and Skyhorse Publishing, which contained negative portrayals of Fradkoff.
- The book alleged that Fradkoff stole company money and engaged in other misconduct, making five distinct statements about him.
- Fradkoff filed a defamation lawsuit, seeking $100 million in punitive damages, alleging the statements were false and defamatory per se, and caused harm to his business and reputation.
- The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the statements were protected opinion or not actionable, and Fradkoff did not sufficiently plead actual malice as required under New York anti-SLAPP law due to the public interest nature of the publication.
- The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss but allowed Fradkoff leave to amend as to two of the five statements if he could properly plead actual malice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements are fact or opinion | Statements allege crimes, not just opinion | Statements are opinion, especially given first-person narrative | Only two of five are actionable statements of fact |
| Falsity of the statements | Statements are false, never committed any crime | Plaintiff does not specifically allege falsity | Plaintiff adequately alleged falsity |
| Public interest/Actual malice standard | Book is not a matter of broad public concern; negligence suffices | Biography of high-profile company is of public concern, actual malice required | Book concerns public interest, actual malice applies |
| Sufficient pleading of actual malice | Denials, refusal to retract, and co-author's reputation show malice | No facts showing knowledge of falsity/reckless disregard | Actual malice not plausibly pled; complaint dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must be plausible, not just conceivable)
- Foster v. Churchill, 665 N.E.2d 153 (definition of defamation under New York law)
- Meloff v. New York Life Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 138 (elements of libel under New York law)
- Gross v. N.Y. Times Co., 623 N.E.2d 1163 (distinguishing pure and mixed opinion)
- Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 366 N.E.2d 1299 (actionable factual representations)
- Zherka v. Amicone, 634 F.3d 642 (defamation per se under New York law)
- Liberman v. Gelstein, 605 N.E.2d 344 (categories of defamation per se)
- Palin v. New York Times Co., 940 F.3d 804 (actual malice standard)
- Edwards v. Nat'l Audubon Soc'y, 556 F.2d 113 (actual malice cannot rest on denials alone)