Porcari v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 2007-08634.

• Decision Date: 22 April 2008
• Docket Number: 2007-08634.
• Parties: LAWRENCE A. PORCARI, JR., Respondent, v. GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK, INC., et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

50 A.D.3d 993

856 N.Y.S.2d 217

2008 NY Slip Op 03618

LAWRENCE A. PORCARI, JR., Respondent, v. GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK, INC., et al., Appellants.

2007-08634.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

Decided April 22, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated August 20, 2007, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff, an associate corporation counsel employed by the City of Yonkers, commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages based upon defamatory statements about him which appeared in the September 20, 2006 issue of the Journal News Westchester (hereinafter Journal News). The article was written by the defendant William Hughes, a staff writer for the Journal News. The article identified the plaintiff as an attorney who had been sanctioned by a New York City judge for frivolous conduct. It also stated that the plaintiff was employed as an attorney in the Office of the City of Yonkers Corporation Counsel but was sanctioned in the context of representing a client in a private practice matter. In fact, the attorney against whom sanctions were imposed was Lawrence A. Porcari, the plaintiff's father, who maintains an office in Yonkers for the private practice of law. The following day, the Journal News published a retraction and a corrected follow-up story. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7). We affirm.

The Supreme Court properly found that the defendants' statements were reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning as they tended to disparage the plaintiff in his trade, business, or profession (see Aronson v Wiersma, 65 NY2d 592, 594 [1985]). Thus, the plaintiff was not required to plead or prove special damages (id. at 594; see Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 434-435 [1992]).

The Supreme Court also correctly determined that the plaintiff was not required to plead or prove that the defamatory statements were published with actual malice since he, in his position as an associate corporation counsel, did not qualify as a "public official" under the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court over 40 years ago in New York Times Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254 [1964]). The position of associate corporation counsel is not a position of "such apparent importance that the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performance of the person who holds it, beyond the general public interest in the qualifications and performance of all government employees" (Rosenblatt v Baer, 383 US 75, 86 [1966]; see Lambert v Corcoran, 209 AD2d 674, 675 [1994]). Thus, the plaintiff was governed by the rule set forth by ...