54 N.Y.2d 880 | NY | 1981
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for a new trial.
The trial court refused defendant’s request to rule that plaintiff was a public figure. We agree with the Appellate Division that this was error and that, as a matter of law, plaintiff was a public figure.
On this evidence, the credibility of which plaintiff cannot claim is in issue, we conclude that the standard of James was met as a matter of law. The product of plaintiff’s craft — his books, articles and personal appearances— were obviously designed to project his name and personality before millions of readers of nationally distributed magazines and millions of television’s viewers and to establish his
Because plaintiff was a public figure the liability, if any, of defendants would turn on whether it was determined that Treadwell made the statements with knowledge of their falsity or did so in reckless disregard of the truth (New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 279-280; Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 42 NY2d 369, 379). The trial court did not charge this standard, applicable to defamation of public figures, and obviously the jury did not consider the case on this standard. In view of the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff was not a public figure, it would have been but a futile gesture to have mouthed a request for such a charge. The issue was preserved for our review by the express request for a ruling that plaintiff was a public figure, and the registration of further protest became unnecessary when the court denied that request.
Because, in consequence of the errors of law cited (and we pass on no other issues), the case was tried and decided under incorrect principles of law the case should be remitted to Supreme Court for a new trial.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuohsberg and Meyer concur.
Order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for a new trial in a memorandum.
In view of our determination that plaintiff was a public figure as a matter of law, we have no occasion to consider or address the question whether a