YELLON v. LAMBERT


289 A.D.2d 486 (2001)

735 N.Y.S.2d 592

NORMAN L. YELLON, Appellant, v. BRUCE LAMBERT et al., Respondents.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On April 4, 1999, the defendant New York Times published an article written by the defendant Bruce Lambert entitled "What Happens If Process Server Doesn't Serve." The article was written about the plaintiff's process-serving business and included allegations that the plaintiff had falsified affidavits of service by alleging that service had been completed when it had not, forging signatures, and notarizing documents without a license. The article also asserted that various individuals claimed to have lost property as a result of improper service by the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action to recover damages for defamation.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Given that the article, at a minimum, involved a matter of public concern, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties (see, Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 N.Y.2d 196). The evidence indicates that Lambert obtained most of his information from a source he found credible, but nonetheless, conducted his own investigation and corroborated most of the information by interviewing many, if not all, of the people who were cited in the article. He also reviewed various court documents. In addition, Lambert interviewed the plaintiff and printed his brief comments.

Based on this evidence, the defendants' actions cannot be deemed grossly irresponsible even though some of the allegations in the article were false (see, Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, supra; Landsman v Tonawanda Publ. Corp., 186 A.D.2d 1028; Hawks v Record Print. & Publ. Co., 109 A.D.2d 972; Meadows v Taft Broadcasting Co., 98 A.D.2d 959). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases