Lawyer-Judge Couple's Defamation Suit Against New York Post Dismissed
The married lawyer and longtime judge's suit was lodged against the New York Post after it published an article about the lawyer using his wife's judicial license plates to wrongfully park behind the Queens Supreme Court building.
February 26, 2019 at 04:22 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
A New York state appeals court has ruled that a defamation lawsuit launched by Brooklyn criminal defense lawyer Bernard Udell and his wife, longtime Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Bernadette Bayne, against the New York Post over an article published about Udell must be dismissed.
The lawyer and former judge's suit was lodged in 2014 against the Post after it published an article earlier that year about Udell using Bayne's judicial license plates to wrongfully park behind the Queens Supreme Court building.
Now, an Appellate Division, Second Department, panel has ruled that the suit over the Post article, titled “Judge's hubby takes space for prisoner van,” was properly tossed out by the lower court because “the article, read as a whole, is based upon nonactionable substantially true statements and statements of opinion.”
The article said that Udell was using Bayne's judicial plates to park in a specially designated area behind the Queens Supreme Court building reserved for police officers transporting prisoners, and the story quoted a Supreme Court officers' union president as saying that Udell's wrongful parking was putting public safety at risk.
The panel, in an opinion issued last week, pointed out that “Udell did not challenge [in his libel and defamation lawsuit] the accuracy of the quotation attributed to him where he admitted, in essence, that he parked where he should not have parked.”
The unanimous panel continued, “Specifically, he [Udell] stated, in sum and substance, that he usually asked for permission to park in the subject area but on that day, he did not receive permission because 'no one was around.'”
Udell, a Brooklyn-based lawyer who according to an Avvo listing has been licensed to practice law for 50 years, and who represented himself and his wife pro se in the appeal, couldn't be reached for comment for this story, and neither could Bayne.
The panel explained that Udell's and Bayne's libel and defamation suit, filed by Udell in 2014, contended in part that defendant NYP Holdings Inc., publisher of the New York Post, “published a false and defamatory article portraying both plaintiffs as having knowingly placed the public in danger for their own benefit when Udell, one day in late May 2014, parked a vehicle carrying judicial license plates in a 'special area' behind the Queens County Courthouse that was used for law enforcement vehicles transporting prisoners to and from the courthouse.”
Subsequently, NYP Holdings, Christina Carrega-Woodby, the writer of the article, and Ellis Kaplan, a photographer whose photo of Udell ran with the article, moved to dismiss the complaint as asserted against them by arguing that the article “was substantially true, that any alleged defamatory implications were contrived, and that the statements of the two sources cited in the article were nonactionable expressions of opinion.”
In April 2016, Queens Supreme Court Justice Valerie Brathwaite Nelson “in effect, granted that branch of the motion” that dismissed the complaint as asserted against those three defendants, the panel further wrote. The panel, in its decision, upheld Brathwaite Nelson's ruling.
In explaining its analysis of Udell's and Bayne's defamation lawsuit, the panel noted that “where the plaintiff is a private person [such as Udell], but the content of the article is arguably within the sphere of legitimate public concern, the publisher of the alleged defamatory statements cannot be held liable unless it 'acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties,'” quoting Stone v. Bloomberg.
Moreover, in explaining applicable defamation standards, the panel wrote that “a public official, such as a judge, cannot recover for a defamatory statement about his or her official conduct in the absence of proof of actual malice,” citing New York Times v. Sullivan, among other cases.
And “truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action, and the test to determine whether a statement is substantially true 'is whether [the statement] as published would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced,'” the panel wrote while quoting in part Greenberg v. Spitzer.
Then, in upholding Brathwaite Nelson's dismissal of the lawsuit against three Post defendants, the panel said that “in considering the article as a whole, the statements attributed to an unnamed source and to the president of the Supreme Court Officers' union [about the danger to the public caused by wrongful parking] were general statements about the judiciary such that a reasonable reader would have concluded that he or she was reading opinions, not facts, about the plaintiffs.”
The panel continued, “The article, read as a whole, is based upon nonactionable substantially true statements and statements of opinion. To the extent the plaintiffs contend that statements in the article impart defamatory inferences, the complaint fails to 'make a rigorous showing that the language of the communication as a whole can be reasonably read both to impart a defamatory inference and to affirmatively suggest that the author intended or endorsed that inference,'” quoting Stepanov v. Dow Jones & Co.
Laura Handman, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, who represented the New York Post and related Post defendants, said in an email that she and her team were pleased with the panel's decision.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Elon Musk Has a Lot More Than a 'Tornetta' Appeal to Resolve in Delaware
5 minute readAI Adoption, Data Center Building Boom Opening More Doors for Cybercriminals, Many of Them Teenagers
Trending Stories
- 1Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 2OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 34th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 4Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
- 5How the Trump II Administration Can Combat Antisemitism
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250