Golub v. Enquirer/Star Group, Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1997
• Citation: 659 N.Y.S.2d 836,89 N.Y.2d 1074
• Parties: , 681 N.E.2d 1282, 25 Media L. Rep. 1863 Aaron R. GOLUB, as Executor of Chen Sam, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. ENQUIRER/STAR GROUP, INC., Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 836

659 N.Y.S.2d 836

89 N.Y.2d 1074, 681 N.E.2d 1282, 25

Media L. Rep. 1863

Aaron R. GOLUB, as Executor of Chen Sam, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. ENQUIRER/STAR GROUP, INC., Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 13, 1997.

Nehemiah S. Glanc, New York City, and Aaron Richard Golub, pro se, for appellants.

Squadron, Ellenoff, Plesent & Sheinfeld, L.L.P., New York City (Slade R. Metcalf, Mark H. Jackson and Jean Voutsinas, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division dismissing the complaint should be affirmed, with costs.

A statement that plaintiffs' decedent, a public relations consultant, had cancer was published in the August 27, 1991, issue of defendant's publication "Star." Plaintiffs contend that the published statement about decedent having been diagnosed with cancer is defamatory in two respects. First, according to plaintiffs, the nature of cancer is so inextricably intertwined with the thought of impending death that clients would lose confidence in the ability of plaintiffs' decedent to supply public relations services, thereby injuring her in her business. Alternatively, plaintiffs argue that cancer is, or has become associated with, a condition odious enough to drive away decedent's clients in disgust or fear. Plaintiffs put forth no proof of damages or actual harm resulting from the complained of publication.

As we stated in Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 N.Y.2d 592, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 483 N.E.2d 1138, "[w]hether particular words are defamatory presents a legal question to be resolved by the court in the first instance * * * and if not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning, they are not actionable and cannot be made so by a strained or artificial construction" (id., at 593-594, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 483 N.E.2d 1138). Generally, a written statement may be defamatory "if it tends to expose a person to hatred, contempt or aversion, or to induce an evil or unsavory opinion of him in the minds of a substantial number of the community" (Mencher v. Chesley, 297 N.Y. 94, 100, 75 N.E.2d 257). Even on a professional level, a defamatory meaning may attach to derogatory statements that would cause apprehension about a person's ability to conduct business.

In that sense, the statement that plaintiffs' decedent had cancer did not defame her in her trade, business or profession. To be actionable as words that tend to injure another in his or her profession, the challenged statement must be more than a general reflection upon decedent's character or qualities. Rather, the statement must reflect on her performance or be incompatible with the proper conduct of her business (see, e.g., Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 436, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344; Aronson, 65 N.Y.2d at, 594, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 483 N.E.2d 1138; Sanderson v. Caldwell, 45 N.Y....