Martin v. Daily News, L.P., 2009 NY Slip Op 31603(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/14/2009), 100053/08
| Decision Date | 14 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 100053/08,100053/08 |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 31603 |
| Parties | LARRY D. MARTIN Plaintiff, v. DAILY NEWS, L.P., ERROL LOUIS and RAVI BATRA, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Plaintiff Larry D. Martin ("Justice Martin or "plaintiff), a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, filed an unverified complaint alleging six causes of action sounding in defamation against defendants Daily News, L.P. ("Daily News"), Errol Louis ("Louis") and Ravi Batra ("Batra"). Daily News, a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Manhattan, is the owner, operator and publisher of The Daily News newspaper. The Daily News has a circulation of over one hundred thousand readers and also publishes an internet edition of the newspaper. Louis is a journalist and columnist for the Daily News. Batra is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York.
The first three causes of action allege defamation and defamation perse against defendants Daily News and Louis. Justice Martin seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000,000, along with punitive damages in the same amount. The fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action seek the same damages against defendant Batra for his purported role in the publication of allegedly false defamatory statements.
In response to the complaint, defendants Daily News and Louis and defendant Batra, pro se, filed separate pre-answer motions to dismiss, which are consolidated herein for disposition. Daily News and Louis assert that the first three causes of action against them should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7). Likewise, Batra seeks an order dismissing the causes of action against him on the same grounds. In addition, Batra seeks costs and attorney's fees pursuant to CPLR §8303-a and 22 NYCRR §130-1.1, as well as financial sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1.1 because plaintiff commenced this allegedly frivolous action.
Two newspaper articles and several blog postings are at the heart of this action. On or about January 28, 2007, Louis and Daily News published an article in the opinion section of The Daily News, entitled "This Case Could Topple Legal Titans" (the "First Article"). The First Article was also posted online on or about the same day.
The main theme of the First Article is judicial corruption in Brooklyn. The op-ed piece focuses on defendant Batra and a lawsuit he filed on behalf of his client, Martin Riskin ("Riskin"), against attorney Jerome Karp ("Karp").1 According to the First Article, Batra's lawsuit alleges that "Karp violated conflict-of-interest rules, and possibly committed a crime, in a sprawling $20 million dispute between two Brooklyn real estate families — the Riskins and the Singers . . ." Louis/Daily News Motion at Exh. B.
The First Article identifies plaintiff by name in the context of the Riskin/Singer dispute. Specifically, the article reads:
Batra's complaint, filed in Brooklyn Supreme Court, alleges that Karp secretly took payments from a party in the real estate fight, Ted Singer, and provided legal advice and strategy to him — all without disclosing the fact that Karp once represented Supreme Court Justice Larry Martin, the judge hearing the multimillion-dollar case.
In plain English, Batra claims that Karp tried to rig the case by simultaneously representing Singer and the judge hearing his case.
The First Article concludes-with the statement: "Local and federal prosecutors have been alerted" and they "should follow up with Batra immediately and get to the bottom of a case that could make [Clarence] Norman's alleged crimes look like a church picnic." Id.
Justice Martin argues that the First Article was false and defamatory in that: 1) it conveys to the reasonable reader that plaintiff was an accomplice in rigging a case by permitting Karp, his former attorney, to represent one of the parties in a case before him; 2) he never presided over such a case; 3) the article also conveys to the reader that plaintiff engaged in criminal acts which should be investigated by the proper authorities; and 4) plaintiff claims he did not commit the acts in question.
On or about February 8, 2007, Louis and Daily News published an article entitled "Weed Out Bad Judges", bearing the subtitle "More Resources Will Help Nail Corrupt Jurists" (the "Second Article"). Like the First Article, the Second Article was in the "Op-Ed" section of The Daily News print and online editions. The theme of this article was a call for more resources to bolster the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct (the "Commission"). The Second Article briefly discusses the Commission's regulatory role and bemoans the fact that the Commission lacks adequate resources to properly monitor and discipline "corrupt jurists". See Complaint, Exh. B. The Commission's lack of resources "helps explain the wave of courthouse scandals in places like Brooklyn, where crooked judges — like pickpockets, burglars and other thieves — have felt free to break the rules, knowing that the [Commission] is underfunded and understaffed and overworked."
The article references two judges who were both removed from the bench by the Commission for improprieties, then turns its attention toward plaintiff. Identifying Justice Martin by name and occupation, the article references prior proceedings before the Commission involving plaintiff:
On at least two occasions — in 1999, and again in 2000 — Martin improperly sent letters on courthouse stationery asking other judges to impose lenient sentences on defendants who happened to be family friends of Martin.2
With this as background, two paragraphs further, the Second Article continues:
Now [Martin] is in the hot seat again. According to a lawsuit filed in November, Martin is hearing a real estate case, Singer vs. Riskin, in which the judge's personal lawyer — Jerome Karp, who defended Martin before the commission in the letter-writing cases — is representing one of the parties in the case, Ted Singer. (Emphasis in original).
Louis characterizes the situation as "an obvious conflict of interest", admonishes plaintiff for his alleged lack of disclosure and refusal to recuse himself, and suggests that the Commission "will need to spend time and money to sort through the charges." The Second Article concludes that additional resources for the Commission are necessary to "keep a close eye on judges who consider themselves above the law."
Plaintiff argues that the Second Article was false and defamatory in that: 1) it conveys to the reader that plaintiff is under investigation by the Commission, when no such investigation was then pending or has ever been brought against plaintiff with respect to this matter; 2) plaintiff did not preside over the action referred to as "Singer vs. Riskin"; 3) Karp was not the attorney of record in Riskin v. Belinda, Kings County Index No. 48555/98 (the "Belinda Action"), over which plaintiff did preside; 4) while Karp once represented Justice Martin before the Commission in connection with the letterwriting matter, such representation ceased over five years ago; and 5) the Second Article states and was intended for reasonable readers to infer that plaintiff has engaged in "hidden or subtle corruption" and deems himself "above the law."
In fact, the complaint steadfastly maintains that plaintiff was not the presiding jurist in the Kings County lawsuit captioned Singer v. Riskin. This caption refers to a virtual cornucopia of litigation (approximately eleven different lawsuits, some with different captions) involving the two parties, which Batra metaphorically describes as "a litigation octopus".3
Plaintiff presided over the related Belinda Action, a foreclosure action against a mortgagor/buyer of one of the properties in which Singer claimed Riskin owed him money. Batra, as Riskin's counsel, appeared before plaintiff in the case. In July 2000, Singer moved to intervene in the Belinda Action. In October 2000, Singer requested that the intervention motion be withdrawn, which Justice Martin granted without prejudice and over Riskin's objection in or about October 2000. At this point, plaintiff's involvement in the Belinda Action did not completely cease as defendant Batra, as Riskin's counsel, filed a motion for sanctions against Singer based on his intervention motion. Singer filed a responsive cross-motion for sanctions against Batra. Both of these sanctions motions lay dormant on the court's docket until August 2005, when they were argued. At that time, Justice Martin denied Riskin's request for Justice Martin to recuse himself on the grounds that the latter had no current relationship with Karp. In August 2006, plaintiff denied both motions.
Riskin v. Belinda is one of the subjects of the Karp Action. Defendant Batra filed this lawsuit on Riskin's behalf alleging inter alia that Karp served as illegal "shadow counsel" to Singer in the Belinda Action while actively misrepresenting his role in this regard to Batra. The Karp Action further alleges that Karp improperly failed to disclose his representation of Justice Martin, the presiding justice in the Belinda Action.
With the legal saga of Singer v. Riskin as background, the court now turns to the "blog" that, along with the First and Second Articles, forms the subject matter of Justice Martin's defamation claims. Several postings on a blog hosted by The Daily News (entitled "The Daily Politics") form additional grounds for Justice Martin's defamation claims. On February 8, 2007, defendant Louis posted an entry entitled "Watching the Judges", which briefly summarized the Second Article and delved deeper into its subject matter. See Complaint, Exh. C. Louis mentions plaintiffs name in the context of the Belinda Action and Riskin v. Karp as a of how the Commission's inadequate resources allow some judges "to...
To continue reading
Request your trial