Molnar v. Star-Ledger

• Decision Date: 17 February 1984
• Docket Number: No. G,STAR-LEDGER,G
• Parties: , 47 A.L.R.4th 707, 10 Media L. Rep. 1823 Gabor MOLNAR, 227 East Orange Inc., A New Jersey Corporation, 262rove Street Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The, a New Jersey Corporation, and Scott Minerbrook, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 12

193 N.J.Super. 12

471 A.2d 1209, 47 A.L.R.4th 707, 10

Media L. Rep. 1823

Gabor MOLNAR, 227 East Orange Inc., A New Jersey Corporation, 262 No. Grove Street Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The STAR-LEDGER, a New Jersey Corporation, and Scott Minerbrook, Defendants-Appellants.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Submitted Nov. 15, 1983.

Decided Feb. 17, 1984.

Robinson, Wayne, Levin, Riccio & LaSala, Newark, attorneys for appellants (Edward F. Lamb, Newark, of counsel and on the brief).

Respondents did not file a brief.

Before Judges MICHELS, KING and DREIER.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

MICHELS, P.J.A.D.

Pursuant to leave of this court defendants Newark Morning Ledger Company ¹ (Star Ledger) and Scott Minerbrook (Minerbrook) appeal from a portion of an order of the Law Division that denied their motion for summary judgment in this libel action.

Plaintiff Gabor Molnar (Molnar), the sole stockholder and officer of plaintiff corporations 227 East Orange, Inc. and 262 No. Grover Street, Inc., instituted this action against the Star Ledger and its reporter Minerbrook claiming that he and his corporations were defamed by the article written by Minerbrook and published in the Star Ledger on October 17, 1980. This article, entitled "Court-Dodging Landlord Sentenced to Six Months," read as follows:

An East Orange landlord with a history of court troubles was sentenced yesterday to six months in the Essex County Corrections Center by a judge who found him guilty of noncompliance with the municipal property maintenance code.

Gabor Molnar, who has had numerous bench warrants for his arrest issued over the last two years, was taken into custody by East Orange police at his Millburn home on charges he illegally shut off water on three separate occasions at two of the five properties he owns in the city, authorities said.

The arrest came after a suspicious two-alarm fire at 262 N. Grove St., which fire officials labeled a "probable arson."

While the arrest was unconnected with the blaze, fire authorities said Molnar refused to take a lie-detector test on circumstances surrounding the fire.

City Council William Eaton explained the arrest and subsequent six-month jail sentence was ordered by Municipal Judge Julius Fielo after Molnar was convicted of six property maintenance violations.

The city counsel explained Molnar was convicted earlier this year of three separate property maintenance code violations by Municipal Court Judge Kenneth Williams, but the verdict was overturned by a higher court.

Eaton said the city law department is investigating the possibility of pursuing class action suits against landlords who don't comply with property maintenance codes but who continue to collect rents.

Molnar owns four other buildings in East Orange. They are: 30 and 31 Beech St. and 165 and 227 Park Ave.

Records show Molnar has not paid taxes on any of the properties since he purchased them in 1978.

All counted, the landlord owes the city more than $170,000 in back taxes plus more than $13,500 in uncollected water bills, according to city records. [Emphasis added].

Molnar alleges that as a result of these statements he has suffered injury to his reputation and credit. The corporate plaintiffs allege as special damages that they lost tenants and revenues, that their property was disparaged on the rental market, and that their insurers cancelled the insurance on these premises. At the pretrial conference Molnar added that as a result of the article he was damaged in his occupation as a home-improvement contractor, and also that certain tenants of the buildings owned by the plaintiff corporations refused to pay rent, causing loss of revenue to the corporations and therefore loss of income to him.

During depositions Molnar virtually admitted the truth of all statements contained in the article except the portion thereof asserting that he had refused to submit to a lie detector test. Molnar admitted that he was physically present in the building on the date of the fire, but denied that he was ever requested by anyone, including the police or fire department, to take a lie detector test.

Minerbrook was a "beat reporter" at the time the allegedly defamatory article was written. He testified at depositions that he first became aware of the fire at 262 North Grove Street as the result of a call which he placed to the local fire department on October 16, 1980. He first reported on the fire in an article published on that date. The article upon which this libel action is based was published on the next day, October 17th. Minerbrook testified that the information set forth in this October 17th article pertaining to Molnar's arrest and jail sentence, his earlier property maintenance code violations and his failure to pay taxes was furnished by William Eaton, the East Orange City Counsel. As to the information regarding Molnar's refusal to submit to a lie detector test, Minerbrook testified that this was obtained from a Mr. Slaughter, who Minerbrook believed was then a Deputy Fire Chief. Minerbrook admitted that after receiving this information from Slaughter he did not contact any other source, including the police or Molnar, to verify its accuracy. Minerbrook also stated that following publication of the article he was contacted by Otto Blazsek, Molnar's attorney, who informed him that Molnar had never been requested to take a lie detector test. Minerbrook further testified that after receiving this information he again contacted Slaughter who confirmed that Molnar had never been requested to undergo the test. Although Blazsek's statement was subsequently printed in an article entitled "Landlord Posts Bail" published in the Star Ledger on October 22, 1980, a formal retraction of the article published on October 17, 1980 never appeared in the Star Ledger. However, it is uncontradicted that Molnar never requested a retraction in writing from the Star Ledger.

Defendants moved for summary judgment as to all counts in the complaint on the basis that the article was not defamatory, and, alternatively, that it was privileged and that there was no proof of actual malice to overcome the privilege. They also sought dismissal of Molnar's claim for punitive damages and his claim for damages suffered by his construction company. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in defendants' favor, determining that, with the exception of the statements relating to the failure to take the lie detector test, the October 17 article was not actionable. The court, however, refused to dismiss Molnar's claim for punitive damages and damages to his construction company. The trial court held essentially that the statement that Molnar refused the lie detector test, when viewed in the context of the article concerning arson, was defamatory as a matter of law, and that questions of fact existed in regard to whether the statements were privileged and as to whether the statements were made negligently or with actual malice. As to the claim for punitive damages, the trial judge found that a question of fact existed with respect to whether the article was published with malice in fact, thus precluding summary judgment on this issue. It was further determined that defendants' argument that Molnar could not sue for damages suffered by his construction corporation because the article was not "of or concerning" the corporation was without merit.

I.

The Star Ledger and Minerbrook first contend that the trial court erred in holding that the statement concerning the lie detector test when viewed "in the context of an article, concerning a suspected arson" was defamatory as a matter of law. They point out that it is common knowledge that "polygraph results may reflect nervousness rather than falsity," that such tests "have not received universal acceptance as mechanisms for ascertaining truth", and that their accuracy is open to question. They argue that the statement that Molnar refused to take the lie detector test may not be held defamatory as a matter of law. We disagree.

It is settled that the determination as to whether a statement is defamatory is a question of law to be resolved by the court. Lawrence v. Bauer Pub. & Print Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 459, 446 A.2d 469 (1982); cert. den. ---U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 358, 74 L.Ed.2d 395 (1982); Kotlikoff v. The Community News, 89 N.J. 62, 67, 444 A.2d 1086 (1982); Herrmann v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 48 N.J.Super. 420, 429-430, 138 A.2d 61 (App.Div.1958) aff'd on rehearing 49 N.J.Super. 551, 140 A.2d 529 (App.Div.1958). Only where the court determines that the statement is reasonably susceptible to both a defamatory and a non-defamatory meaning does a question of fact exist for the jury to decide. Lawrence v. Bauer Pub. & Print Ltd., supra, 89 N.J. at 459, 446 A.2d 469; Herrmann v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., supra, 48 N.J.Super. at 431, 138 A.2d 61. In determining whether words are actionable, "the language in question must be construed according to the fair and natural meaning which will be given it by reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence." Herrmann v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., supra, 48 N.J.Super. at 430, 138 A.2d 61. The allegedly defamatory statement must be taken in context and the publication considered as a whole. Cibenko v. Worth Publishers, Inc., 510 F.Supp. 761, 764 (D.N.J.1981); Mick v. American Dental Assn., 49 N.J.Super. 262, 274, 139 A.2d 570 (App.Div.1958), certif. den. 27 N.J. 74, 141 A.2d 318 (1958). See Kotlikoff v. The Community News, supra, 89 N.J. at 72, 444 A.2d 1086. As stated in Lawrence v. Bauer Pub. & Print, Ltd., supra:

To establish the defamatory nature of the article it [is] not necessary for plaintiffs to prove that defendants had accused them of the commission of a crime. Words that clearly 'sound to the disreputation' of an individual are defamatory on their face. [89 N.J. at 459, 446 A.2d 469].

Thus the...