340 F. Supp. 3d 161
E.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Andrew Greene, former Stratton Oakmont lawyer, sued producers/distributor of The Wolf of Wall Street alleging the film’s composite character Nicky Koskoff ("Rugrat") defamed him by portraying criminality, drug use, prostitution and other misconduct.
- The Movie was adapted from Jordan Belfort’s 2007 memoir; the screenplay and credits state the film is "based on actual events" but include a closing disclaimer that some characters and incidents were fictionalized.
- The Koskoff character was admitted by filmmakers to be a composite of three real people (including Greene and others) and was given a different name and partly fictionalized history; producers and distributors submitted declarations that they understood the character as fictional/composite.
- Several former Stratton Oakmont associates testified they recognized Koskoff as visually resembling Greene (toupee, lawyer/corporate finance role) but also testified they did not believe the film’s misconduct scenes actually depicted Greene.
- Procedurally Greene proceeded only on a public-figure libel claim (actual malice) after other claims were dismissed; defendants moved for summary judgment which the court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Greene's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements are "of and concerning" Greene (i.e., Koskoff depicts Greene) | Koskoff’s appearance, role and nickname identify him as Greene | Koskoff is a composite with different name/history; disclaimer and creative dramatization mean no specific portrayal | Even assuming triable issue whether Koskoff is "of and concerning" Greene, resolution unnecessary because claim fails on malice |
| Whether statements false or substantially true | Many scenes falsely attribute criminal/immoral acts to Greene | Scenes track Belfort’s memoir and reflect composite/fictionalized dramatization; some events in memoir support depictions | Court treated many scenes as dramatizations of memoir; truth/substantial truth not dispositive because malice controlling here |
| Whether defendants acted with actual malice (knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity) | Defendants failed adequate research, relied on Belfort (an unreliable source), and ignored clearance procedures | Producers/distributor reasonably relied on memoir, created a composite character, used disclaimers, and had vetting procedures; no evidence they entertained serious doubts | No clear and convincing evidence of actual malice; defendants did not act with subjective awareness of probable falsity |
| Whether alleged statements are libel per se or require special damages | Greene asserted multiple per se defamatory scenes causing reputational harm | Defendants argued many complained-of items are non-actionable or dramatized; special damages lacking | Court found malice absence fatal; did not need to reach per se or damages claims and dismissed libel claim with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (public-figure actual malice standard discussion)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (reckless disregard requires serious doubts as to truth)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496 (actual malice = deliberate or reckless falsification)
- Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (First Amendment breathing space; public-figure protections)
- Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters., 209 F.3d 163 (elements of libel under New York law)
- Chau v. Lewis, 771 F.3d 118 (libel elements and standards)
- Biro v. Conde Nast, 963 F. Supp. 2d 255 (actual malice discussion in press-related defamation)
- McLee v. Chrysler Corp., 109 F.3d 130 (summary judgment inferences favor non-movant)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219 (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
- New Times, Inc. v. Isaacks, 146 S.W.3d 144 (satire/composite-character caution against "automatic actual malice")