173 A.D.3d 86
N.Y. App. Div.2019Background
- In June 2008 the New York State Police held a press conference publicizing "Operation Safe Internet," displaying seven poster boards of 61 mug shots labeled with arrestees' names, locations, and alleged crimes.
- Claimant Robert Partridge's mug shot appeared on a poster board; he had been arrested in connection with a warrant but was charged only with possession-related offenses (marijuana and alleged steroids) that were later adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and ultimately dismissed and sealed.
- The press conference emphasized Internet crimes against children and sexual predators; some broadcasters showed Partridge's photo but the small labels on the posters were unreadable in broadcasts.
- State Police personnel who prepared and displayed the boards referred to them as a "wall of shame" and knew the underlying facts of Partridge's non-sexual charges.
- Partridge sued the State for defamation (claiming defamation by implication) seeking $750,000; after a bifurcated trial the Court of Claims awarded $300,000; State appealed and claimant cross-appealed as to damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a facially true communication can be defamatory by implication | Partridge: the press conference, photo placement, and unreadable labels reasonably conveyed he was arrested for child sexual offenses | State: only defamation-by-implication theory available, and plaintiff must meet a higher, rigorous standard to show the publisher intended or endorsed the false inference | Court adopted a two-part rigorous test and held the communication reasonably conveyed a defamatory inference and contextually suggested the State intended/endorsed it |
| Applicable standard for defamation by implication | Partridge: standard that looks to whether communication as a whole conveys defamatory inference and suggests intent/endorsement | State: urges adoption of a heightened showing beyond ordinary proof | Court adopted a two-part test: (1) communication reasonably conveys a defamatory inference; (2) it affirmatively and contextually suggests the declarant intended or endorsed that inference |
| Whether State acted with gross irresponsibility/actual malice (privilege shifted) | Partridge: State recklessly failed to verify charges, used a "wall of shame," and knew labels would be unreadable; thus acted with reckless disregard | State: claimed qualified privilege and that plaintiff failed to show gross irresponsibility or malice | Court held qualified privilege attached but Partridge met the shifted burden, showing reckless disregard/malice and gross irresponsibility, defeating the privilege |
| Damages amount | Partridge: award of $300,000 insufficient relative to harms and stigma | State: argued award was excessive | Court affirmed $300,000 as not a material deviation from reasonable compensation given stigma and exacerbation of plaintiff's preexisting condition |
Key Cases Cited
- Stepanov v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 120 A.D.3d 28 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) (adopts rigorous two-part test for defamation by implication)
- Armstrong v. Simon & Schuster, 85 N.Y.2d 373 (N.Y. 1995) (defamation by implication arises from false suggestions or impressions in otherwise truthful statements)
- Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429 (N.Y. 1992) (defines malice as spite, ill will, knowledge of falsity, or reckless disregard)
- Chapadeau v. Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 N.Y.2d 196 (N.Y. 1975) (publisher of matters of public concern liable only if grossly irresponsible)
- Mahoney v. State of New York, 236 A.D.2d 37 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) (plaintiff may show defendant was on notice of lack of factual basis, requiring verification)