Ithaca College v. Yale Daily News Pub. Co., Inc.

Decision Date03 November 1980
Citation105 Misc.2d 793,433 N.Y.S.2d 530
Parties, 6 Media L. Rep. 2180 ITHACA COLLEGE, Plaintiff, v. YALE DAILY NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. d/b/a The Yale Daily News; and Berkley Publishing Corporation, Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court

Wiggins, Tsapis, Holmberg & Galbraith, Ithaca, for plaintiff (Dirk A. Galbraith, Ithaca, of counsel).

Parker, Duryee, Zunino, Malone & Carter, New York City, for defendants (William Lee Kinnallay, Jr., New York City, of counsel).

ROBERT E. FISCHER, Justice.

In this action for libel, defendants have moved on various grounds for summary judgment. With the single exception of the issues raised as to the statute of limitations, the facts are not in dispute.

The issues relate to "The Insider's Guide to the Colleges 1978-79", which was compiled and edited by the student staff of the defendant Yale Daily News (Yale) and published by defendant Berkley Publishing Corporation (Berkley). This 404 page paperback publication contains descriptive commentary of 230 colleges and universities throughout the country. Plaintiff, Ithaca College, as one of those institutions, deems certain aspects of an article relating to it to be defamatory. In particular, the college asserts that the following paragraph contains material (herein underlined) which damages both its business and academic reputation:

"Life at Ithaca is anything but harsh. (Watch out, though. The weather stinks, except in the summer when you're home.) The Pub, located in the middle of the campus, provides the center of social life for many students. Sex, drugs, and booze are the staples of life. If Ithaca has a reputation as a party school, it is well deserved. The predominant attitude among the upper-middle-class student body is that 'we are only here to party.' Sex is casual, and formal dating is unheard of; the pickup scene thrives in Ithaca. The women are reportedly attractive, and the guys weight-trained. The use of pot is a foregone conclusion, and cocaine occasionally manages to wend its way into the hands of those who can afford it. Speed and downers are common, but acid enjoys healthy disuse. The town is cram-packed with bars, theaters, and cultural events."

The staff of the defendant Yale compiled the data for this seventh edition of the "Insider's Guide" in 1977, the original publication having been in 1971.

On March 7, 1977, Yale wrote the editor of the school newspaper at Ithaca College, requesting him to recruit two staff members to evaluate the school. The editor was advised that it was difficult for Yale personnel "to visit and evaluate each school personally", and that its editors "depend heavily on students who can objectively and coherently evaluate their campus", and furnished guidelines for the proposed evaluation with the letter. In addition to repetitive requests for accuracy and objectivity, as well as comments about the school's academic life, the reporters were invited to note its social life, viz: "What do people do at your school when they're having fun? Are drugs popular? How about alcohol? What kind of music do people listen to?" A return date of April 15 was requested.

By letter dated April 25, 1977, Yale also requested plaintiff's admission office to furnish statistical data for its seventh edition "to provide up-to-date information for the over 40,000 high school seniors who read the book each year." A return date of May 8 was requested. The data supplied is contained in the bold-face type preceding the descriptive commentary.

Defendants advise that they edited the copy supplied by the school reporters, but printed the language-here deemed to be defamatory-"almost in haec verba."

The preface to the book observes that its contents are "apt to excite plenty of disagreement and downright disapproval" and the reader is admonished to "take our words with more than just a polite grain of salt." The preface further notes

"Unlike other student-written guides to colleges that we've seen, we haven't written this book for students of one lifestyle only. Instead, by providing objective inside information, we hope to help the premed as well as the freak, the jock as well as the future Phibate. A word of caution: We would be the last to say that all of what you read here is gospel. Our correspondents are rarely unanimous. We attempt, by judicious editing, to present all sides, but these efforts seem doomed to failure."

Published in December, 1977, the book bears a January, 1978 (Second Printing) publication date.

In the Fall of 1978, the Vice-President for Student Affairs of Ithaca College learned of the Guide's publication "through discussions with students and parents of students attending" the school. His affidavit advises that he had "heard reports from prospective applicants to Ithaca College and their parents questioning the advisability of enrolling at Ithaca College if the statements contained in (the Guide) were true. That it is impossible at the present time to accurately measure how many qualified prospective applicants ... have been influenced not to enroll ... by the statements contained (in the Guide)."

By November of 1978, counsel for plaintiff advised defendant Berkley of the statements deemed defamatory, 1 and requested cessation of publication and elimination of the material from subsequent editions to avoid legal action. This proceeding was commenced when defendant failed to respond.

We observe initially that summary judgment is the rule, not the exception in defamation cases (Unification Church v. Harper & Row, 101 Misc.2d 30, 34, 420 N.Y.S.2d 56) and the recent imposition of First Amendment privileges on this ancient tort has placed a heavy burden of proof on a plaintiff seeking such relief (see Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 369-388, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3021-3030, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 for Justice White's historical perspective concerning these competing interests (dissenting op.)). The extent of that burden varies with the public or private character of the one allegedly defamed, private figures being required to prove publication in a "grossly irresponsible manner" (Chapadeau v. Utica Observer, 38 N.Y.2d 196, 199, 379 N.Y.S.2d 61, 341 N.E.2d 569) while public figures must establish that the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth (James v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 421, 386 N.Y.S.2d 871, 353 N.E.2d 834). Precedent requires plaintiff to establish the falsity of the libel, at least in the "public figure" area (Rinaldi v. Holt Rinehart, 42 N.Y.2d 369, 380, 397 N.Y.S.2d 943, 366 N.E.2d 1299) as must a private individual who is the subject of an article "arguably within the sphere of legitimate public concern, which is reasonably related to the matters warranting public exposition" (Chapadeau, supra, 38 N.Y. at 199, 379 N.Y.S.2d 61, 341 N.E.2d 569).

Although we must recognize the nature of those burdens in weighing the merit of summary judgment motions where, as here the movant is generally the libel defendant, an evidentiary showing must still be made. Thus our search is one for a triable issue of fact, absence of which requires the granting of the motion (Friends of Animals, Inc. v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 416 N.Y.S.2d 790, 390 N.E.2d 298).

To identify the burden applicable here we must first determine whether plaintiff-described in the complaint as "an educational corporation duly chartered under the laws of the State of New York"-is a private or public figure for libel purposes.

The category of "public figures"-which triggers the burdens first articulated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686-is "of necessity quite broad" and includes those individuals who must be deemed "public figures for all purposes", as well as those who "might invite publicity only with respect to a narrow area of interest" (James v. Gannett Co., supra, 40 N.Y.2d at 422-423, 386 N.Y.S.2d 871, 353 N.E.2d 834). Of the same genus are those corporations which, because of their size and influence, are either deemed public figures generally, or deemed so because of actions taken by them which invite public comment (Reliance Insurance Co. v. Barron's, D.C., 442 F.Supp. 1341, 1346-1349).

"For the most part those who attain (the) status (of public figures) have assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society. Some occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes. More commonly, those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. In either event, they invite attention and comment." (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, 418 U.S. at 345, 94 S.Ct. at 3009; emphasis supplied).

It has been observed that private educational institutions such as the plaintiff, occupy a special place in our society:

"... (T)here has been a general recognition for many generations (in this country) that privately controlled colleges and universities-if they are good-serve the public interest ... The service (is wide)-including as it does the learning of the faculties, the public value of their libraries, the professional service of the lawyers, doctors and engineers they train, and their general civic meaning as major institutions serving the community as a whole." (Excerpt from the "Bundy Report", p. 48, quoted in Mtr. of Canisius College v. Nyquist, 36 A.D.2d 340, 344-345, 320 N.Y.S.2d 652, rev'd on ot. gds., 29 N.Y.2d 928, 329 N.Y.S.2d 105, 279 N.E.2d 860).

As a consequence of their service to the community as a whole, such institutions may be cast in a public role. Indeed, as has been said of another private educational body:

"The university is replete with public interest, requirement and supervision. The university is in the most real and comparable sense a public trust for the rendition of education ... A...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 17, 2013
    ...have held that private colleges and universities are all purpose public figures, see, e.g., Ithaca Coll. v. Yale Daily News Publ'g Co., 105 Misc.2d 793, 433 N.Y.S.2d 530, 534 (App.Div.1980), but those cases are inapposite. Trump University has little in common with the Ithaca Colleges of th......
  • Greenberg v. Spitzer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • November 12, 2020
    ...954 [1991] ).Viewed as the rule, rather than the exception, summary judgment is favored in defamation cases ( Ithaca Coll. v. Yale Daily News Publ. Co., Inc. , 105 Misc 2d 793, 796 [Sup Ct, Tompkins County 1980), affd 85 AD2d 817 [3d Dept 1981] ); Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. ,......
  • Ithaca College v. Yale Daily News Pub. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 17, 1981
    ...per se. In view of this determination, it is unnecessary to pass on the other issues raised. The order should be affirmed. 105 Misc.2d 793, 433 N.Y.S.2d 530. Order affirmed, without ...
  • Long Island University v. Grucci for Congress, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 16, 2004
    ... ... is a public figure (see James v Gannett Co., 40 NY2d 415, 421-422 [1976]; Maule v NYM Corp., 54 NY2d 880 [1981]; Ithaca Coll. v Yale Daily News Publ. Co., 105 Misc 2d ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT