from Abiteboul v. riceruled Monday by New York Trial Court Judge Mary Rosado; The legal analysis is nothing special, but there are facts like this, how can I let it go?
The action resulted from a fire and water damage in an apartment located at 10 West End Avenue, New York, NY 10023 (the “Building”). The plaintiff resides in apartment #14B of the building and the defendant resides in unit 12G. On the morning of November 6, 2019, the plaintiff lit a candle to “clear energy and heal her chakras.” The plaintiff claimed she blew out the candles and sent her son to school. Despite this, a fire broke out and triggered the fire sprinkler system. The defendant’s unit suffered flood damage.
The plaintiff alleges that sometime in July 2022, the defendant told FDNY Fire Marshal Anthony Henry that the plaintiff intentionally set the fire in order to gain notoriety and appear on “The Real Housewives of New York.” The plaintiff also claims that the defendant drafted and filed a civil complaint in June 2022 Rice v. abitbol (the “Parallel Action”) alleges that the plaintiff intentionally caused the fire and sent the complaint to news outlets, including I Love the West End (“ILTUWS”). The plaintiff alleges that the defendant made further defamatory statements to the New York Post, claiming that the investigation into the fire was “an open arson investigation to my knowledge.” The plaintiff claimed that the remarks constituted defamation for himself Because they accused her of committing a crime. She also claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress and sought a declaratory judgment…
The court granted defendant Rice’s motion to dismiss the case based on New York’s “Anti-SLAPP Law”:
Fires in large apartment complexes and allegations of criminal conduct related to the fires constitute a matter of public interest. The statements to the media publications I Love Westside and the New York Post were statements made in a public forum. The same goes for statements made to FDNY fire investigators who investigate the cause and origin of the fire. this means [that under the anti-SLAPP law] The plaintiff has the burden of proving that her defamation claim has a sound legal basis, and there must be sufficient evidence that the defendant made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of its falsity….
The defendant’s allegedly defamatory statements to the FDNY in July 2022 are protected by absolute litigation privilege…. [A]Oral or written statements made by a party in court proceedings enjoy absolute immunity from liability for defamation if they are material and relevant to the issues involved in the proceedings. This privilege applies to out-of-court statements made to potential witnesses. In fact, there is a deep-seated, long-standing public policy supporting the right of individuals to speak out during court proceedings without penalty as long as the speech is relevant to the proceedings.
The statement to the FDNY that the plaintiff claims occurred in July 2022 was made during the pendency of the fire property damage lawsuit initiated by the defendant in July 2022. The cause and origin of the fire seeking compensation for damages in a parallel action. As an FDNY fire captain involved in investigating the fire, the allegedly defamatory remarks were made to potential witnesses relevant to issues involved in the parallel operation. Therefore, defendant’s statements to the FDNY in July 2022 are absolutely privileged and not actionable. There is no substantial legal basis for a defamation claim based on these statements….
In parallel proceedings brought against ILTUWS, the dissemination of defendants’ complaints was protected by the fair reporting privilege. Section 74 of the Civil Rights Act protects speakers from civil liability for publishing fair and truthful reports of judicial proceedings. The question is whether the report accurately describes the claims made in the lawsuit.
The defendants’ complaints in the parallel action survive the motion to dismiss and have not been proven to be false, and the question of whether the fire was intentionally caused is actively litigated. The article was published after the defendants brought proceedings, contained an accurate description of the allegations, and was therefore protected by the statutory fair reporting privilege. Specifically, the article states that there are allegations that the fire occurred negligently or intentionally and that the defendants are seeking monetary damages as a result of the fire. The article also documents the plaintiff’s four failed attempts to appear on The Real Housewives of New York, as well as potential circumstantial evidence that the fire was used as a publicity stunt, as it occurred the day before the plaintiff was to appear on the talk show. She talked extensively about fire on her talk show.
If a plaintiff contends that only a limited privilege exists and there is substantial evidence of actual malice, the court disagrees. There is ample evidence that the plaintiff attempted to gain notoriety about the fire by talking about it on talk shows and promoting it on her Instagram.
Just three months before the fire, the plaintiff was also profiled in a Page Six New York article, which said the plaintiff was “obsessed” with being on “The Real Housewives of New York” and had apparently failed all four auditions. . Accordingly, defendant alleged in his complaint and discussed with the media his belief that plaintiff may have intentionally caused the fire to gain notoriety and publicity and therefore had a basis in good faith, and the draft complaint was circulated in good faith in anticipation that the litigation would proceed in the coming days. week. Accordingly, qualified privilege applies and there is no substantial legal basis for a defamation action based on the defendant’s distribution of a draft complaint to ILTUWS shortly before the complaint was filed….
If the defendant’s emailed inquiry to the New York Post could even be considered defamatory, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide substantial evidence of actual malice to be able to prevail in the defendant’s CPLR 3211(g) motion to dismiss. Survived. [New York anti-SLAPP law requires a showing of actual malice in all libel cases on matters of public concern, whether or not the plaintiff is a public figure.-EV] The alleged defamatory statements consist only of the defendant asking why there was no mention of the arson investigation in the New York Post article and then being told that the arson investigation was ongoing. Defendant’s questioning appears to be based on information (or erroneous information) he received from the FDNY and does not demonstrate the requisite actual bad faith necessary for a CPLR 3211(g) motion to dismiss to survive.
Here, the plaintiffs have presented no evidence that the defendants’ inquiries to the New York Post were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard. Plaintiffs also did not request a limited anti-SLAPP investigation to determine further information in opposition to the motion. The plaintiff failed to meet aggravated liability under anti-SLAPP laws and her defamation claim against the defendants was dismissed. Because defendant successfully dismissed his CPLR 3211(g) motion, he is entitled to attorney’s fees.
