Kramer v. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.
989 N.Y.S.2d 826
N.Y. Sup. Ct.2014Background
- Kramer’s Reality Tours sues Stoller and Skyhorse (and affiliate) for defamation, defamation per se, and tortious interference.
- Stoller co-wrote Seinfeld memoir; Skyhorse published it in 2013.
- The challenged statements arise from Stoller’s memoir chapter describing a Reality Tour incident on a Greenwich Village bus tour.
- Plaintiffs allege the book’s statements falsely accuse Reality Tours and Kramer of taunting gay individuals, harming reputation and business.
- Defendants move under CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a claim; plaintiffs oppose.
- Court grants motion to dismiss all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint pleads defamation with sufficient particularity | Kramer’s standing; words are quoted and identifiable | Complaint paraphrases; lacks clear defamatory words | Complaint sufficiently particular and quotes disclosed words |
| Whether Kramer and Reality Tours have standing to sue for defamation | Kramer has standing as closest public figure to the business | Alleged statements pertain to the Reality Tours employee, not plaintiffs | Plaintiffs have standing |
| Whether the statement is defamatory in fact | Statement harms reputation and implies taunting gay people | Phrase and context do not convey defamation; not reasonably defamatory | Not defaming under the pleaded facts; not actionable |
| Whether the statement is defamatory per se | Depicts conduct incompatible with business | Context shows satire; not inherently incompatible | Not defamatory per se |
| Whether tortious interference with business relations is stated | False statement misleads customers and disrupts relationships | No valid contract or improper interference pleaded | Dismissed for lack of viable tortious interference claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlucci v. Poughkeepsie Newspapers, 57 N.Y.2d 883 (1982) (defamation requires true 'of and concerning' reading for actionability)
- Lihong Dong v. Ming Hai, 108 A.D.3d 599 (2d Dept 2013) (standing in defamation requires plaintiff to show of and concerning)
- American Soc. of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp., 456 U.S. 556 (1982) (agency liability for statements by agents)
- Mañas v. VMS Assoc., LLC, 53 A.D.3d 451 (1st Dept 2008) (paraphrased defamatory words may require dismissal if not identifiable)
- Murganti v. Weber, 248 A.D.2d 208 (1st Dept 1998) (defamation notice requirements; words must be evident to plaintiff)
- Armstrong v. Simon & Schuster, 85 N.Y.2d 373 (1995) (defamatory meaning requires contextual reading; jury decides reasonable interpretation)
- Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 N.Y.2d 592 (1985) (construction of words in context determines defamation)
- James v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415 (1976) (courts assess whether words have reasonable defamatory meaning)
- Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429 (1992) (defamation per se standards for business protection)
- Stepanov v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 120 A.D.3d 28 (1st Dept 2014) (defamation by implication; context matters)
- Talbot v. Johnson Newspaper Corp., 124 A.D.2d 284 (3d Dept 1986) (damages and pleading specificity in defamation)