Samuels v. Berger

• Decision Date: 22 March 1993
• Citation: 191 A.D.2d 627,595 N.Y.S.2d 231
• Parties: Thomas E. SAMUELS, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Harold BERGER, Appellant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 231

595 N.Y.S.2d 231

191 A.D.2d 627

Thomas E. SAMUELS, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Harold BERGER, Appellant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

March 22, 1993.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Stephen Mendelsohn and Abigail Le Petersen, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Esseks, Hefter & Angel, Riverhead (Stephen R. Angel, of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, COPERTINO and PIZZUTO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

In an action to recover damages for defamation, (1) the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated September 14, 1990, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same order as held that they were "limited issue public figures".

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs, a marine contracting company and its president, commenced this defamation action in 1987 against the defendant, who is the Director of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Region I, which encompasses Nassau and Suffolk Counties.

The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that in a 1987 conversation between the defendant and a reporter for New York Newsday newspaper, the defendant stated, "Samuels feels he can do whatever he pleases * * * he violates the law every day". The statement was published in a news article in the newspaper entitled "DEC Gets Chance to Reply To Critics of LI Operation".

The defendant interposed an answer denying various allegations and, subsequently, moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that: (a) the statements are substantially true, because between 1979 and 1987, the plaintiffs accumulated 14 violations of DEC regulations, one of which resulted in the permanent destruction of a wetlands area, and paid various fines based on consent orders, (b) the statements were expressions of his opinion, protected by the First Amendment, (c) the plaintiffs were public figures, and have failed to demonstrate that the statements were false, and that he made the statements with actual malice, (d) he is protected by a qualified privilege, because the issues involved were of interest to him, and on which he had a duty to speak, and the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they were false, and that he made them with express malice or ill-will, and (e) the remarks were not defamatory.

While we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs were "limited issue public figures", we disagree with its conclusion that there are genuine issues of fact, warranting the denial of summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Viewed in the context of the whole article, the statements complained of were not defamatory. The question of whether particular words are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning is to be resolved by the court in the first instance (see, Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 N.Y.2d 592, 593-594, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 483 N.E.2d 1138; James v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 419-420, 386 N.Y.S.2d 871, 353 N.E.2d 834). The statements complained of must be construed in the context of the article or publication as a whole (see, Julian v. American Business Consultants, 2 N.Y.2d 1, 23, 155 N.Y.S.2d 1, 137 N.E.2d 1) and from the standpoint of the average reader (see, Aronson v. Wiersma, supra, at 594, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 483 N.E.2d 1138; Udell v. New York News, 124 A.D.2d 656, 507 N.Y.S.2d 904).

The statement in issue, i.e., "Samuels feels he can do whatever he pleases * * * he violates the law every day", was contained in an article which generally discussed the ongoing public controversy regarding DEC Region I's practices, policies, and regulations concerning tidal wetlands and the shorelines on Long Island. The article discussed the various criticisms and accusations that have been leveled against the DEC's regional office in Stony Brook, and then stated that DEC officials would have the opportunity to respond to these criticisms at an upcoming meeting. The statements complained of were immediately followed by Samuels' response, "We have been fined eight times since 1977. And those were 'stipulations' because the owners--Huntington Town, Southampton Town, Suffolk County--wanted to pay the fine and keep the project going * * * The average fine was $250. It's regulation by extortion".

In the context in which the alleged defamatory statement was made, an average reader would understand it to be part of the criticisms, accusations, and counter-accusations which had become...