Miller v. News Syndicate Co., 446
| Citation | 445 F.2d 356 |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | 447,Dockets 35290,35291.,No. 446,446 |
| Parties | James MILLER, Appellant, v. NEWS SYNDICATE CO., Inc., Appellee. Helen Parthenios MILLER, Appellant, v. NEWS SYNDICATE CO., Inc., Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Richard H. Simons, Milford, Conn., for appellants.
Peter G. Kelly, Hartford, Conn. (Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P. C., Hartford, Conn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LUMBARD, SMITH and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
James Miller and his wife Helen Parthenios Miller appeal from orders of the District of Connecticut, Blumenfeld, J., granting defendant News Syndicate's motion for summary judgment in their diversity actions for libel and invasion of privacy. We affirm the judgment below.
The basis of the Millers' complaints is an article which appeared in The New York Daily News on June 20, 1964. The article described the arrest of five persons including Miller on an indictment which alleged their participation in "the largest and most profitable heroin smuggling syndicate in the world." It asserted that Miller had legally changed his name which formerly was Frank Coppola and that he was an ex-convict who "masqueraded as a legitimate businessman in the swank Connecticut suburbs" where he operated a string of beauty salons. According to the article, he lived on a plot of 25 acres in a rambling ranch-style home which was set "idyllically" on a tree-shaded hill in Orange, Connecticut, and was "well known to Connecticut State Police" although to outward appearances he was "a pillar of the community."
Miller's complaint alleged that The Daily News' article contained material concerning him which was "false, malicious, and defamatory."1 He further alleged that on May 19, 1965 he had demanded that the News retract the article, but that they refused to do so. Compensatory and punitive damages of $2,000,000 were claimed for the alleged libels and an additional $1,000,000 was sought on the theory that publication of the article violated his right to privacy.
The district court found that under the Connecticut Retraction Statute a plaintiff in a libel suit, who is unable to prove that he requested a retraction within a reasonable time, cannot recover damages unless he can prove that the article was published maliciously or he is able to allege and prove special damages as a result of the publication. Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-237 (1949).2 Judge Blumenfeld held that appellant's request for retraction more than eleven months after the article appeared was unreasonably late as a matter of law, and his inability to prove malicious publication and failure to allege and prove special damages prevented any recovery. He then went on to find that the article in question was conditionally privileged because it was "a fair and accurate report of judicial and official proceedings" and "fair comment on a matter of public interest." He also found that the article did not violate plaintiffs' right to privacy because it was protected by the defense of "newsworthiness." Having found that plaintiffs could not prevail on any of their claims, the district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
Appellants argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the appellee because there were disputed issues of fact which should have been resolved by the jury rather than the judge. According to appellants, those disputed issues primarily concerned how much of what was printed was privileged — i. e., how much of it came from legitimate official sources and how much was the product of the News' reporters' allegedly malicious imaginations.
We reject this contention. On the record before us, which consisted of extensive interrogatories, depositions, and affidavits, it is clear that the News' article was privileged as a fair comment on official proceedings, and hence that there was no genuine issue of material fact.3 The News' reporters based their story on reliable sources — national wire services and personal interviews with Customs officials — so they can hardly be accused of gross negligence, much less actual malice. Appellants' suggestion that the News should have stopped the presses when it learned that the Miller home rested on a plot of less than 25 acres is fatuous....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galella v. Onassis, 70 Civ. 4348.
...is implicit in many privacy decisions involving the newsworthiness of public interest defense.41 E. g., Miller v. News Syndicate Co., 445 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir. 1971) (test is "legitimate newsworthiness"); York v. Story, 324 F.2d 450 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U. S. 939, 84 S.Ct. 79......
-
Guitar v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 73 Civ. 161
...v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1125, 93 S.Ct. 939, 35 L.Ed.2d 257 (1973) ; Miller v. News Syndicate Co., 445 F.2d 356 (2d Cir. 1971) ; Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 426 F.2d 858 (5th Cir. 1970) ; Time, Inc. v. McLaney, 406 F.2d 565 (5th Cir.), cert.......
-
Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., REPUBLICAN-AMERICA
...law right of action for invasion of privacy. Travers v. Paton, 261 F.Supp. 110, 114 (D.Conn.1966); see also Miller v. News Syndicate Co., 445 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir. 1971).16 Warren & Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy," 4 Harv.L.Rev. 193 (1890).17 Although a right of action for invasion of pri......
-
Dongguk Univ. v. Yale Univ.
...based on reliable sources, the defendants could “hardly be accused of gross negligence, much less actual malice.” Miller v. News Syndicate Co., 445 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir.1971). But “evidence of an intent to avoid the truth ... [can be] sufficient to satisfy the [actual malice standard].” Ha......