Sprecher v. Dow Jones and Co., Inc.
| Citation | 88 A.D.2d 550,450 N.Y.S.2d 330 |
| Parties | , 8 Media L. Rep. 1681 Benjamin G. SPRECHER et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants, v. DOW JONES AND COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 20 May 1982 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
B. G. Sprecher, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents-appellants.
E. M. Martin, New York City, for defendants-appellants-respondents.
Before SANDLER, J. P., and SULLIVAN, MARKEWICH, FEIN, MILONAS, JJ.
Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 15, 1981, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the first cause of action (prima facie tort, malicious interference with business and injurious falsehood) and the second cause of action (abuse of process), but denied the motion as to the third cause of action (defamation), is modified on the law, with costs to defendants, to the extent of dismissing the third cause of action and otherwise affirmed.
The instant action was instituted by plaintiffs, who are both attorneys, to recover compensatory and punitive damages for alleged injuries to their personal and business reputations arising out of the publication of two articles on November 4, 1977 and January 7, 1980. These articles appeared in the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by defendant Dow Jones and Company, and were written by defendant Burt Schorr, who is a reporter with the newspaper. The stories concerned a lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against a number of defendants, including plaintiffs Sprecher and Roth, which charged fraud in connection with the sale and registration of certain stock. The first article reported the commencement of the SEC action, while the second was written at the conclusion of the litigation.
In their amended verified complaint, dated March 12, 1980, plaintiffs assert that the 1977 story was "extremely deprecatory and inflammatory" and that the 1980 article was "false, misleading and inflammatory" and "false and defamatory". They maintain that the stories were the result of a conspiracy between Schorr and a SEC official to destroy the plaintiffs' reputation and business and were not published for any legitimate newsworthy reason. In that regard, they allege malicious interference with plaintiffs' business relationships, prima facie tort and injurious falsehood (first cause of action), abuse of process (second cause of action) and defamation (third cause of action).
The third cause of action, relating solely to the 1980 article, rests on the proposition that a person reading that story would wrongfully conclude that because some of the defendants in the SEC suit signed a consent decree and were permanently enjoined by court order from future violations of federal securities law, the plaintiffs also settled by entering into such a consent decree. According to plaintiffs, this false implication was extremely harmful to their personal and business reputations, since, under the Securities Law of 1933, anyone signing a consent decree with the SEC is barred from acting as an issuer of Regulation A securities or as an attorney for the issuer of such securities or both. In effect, plaintiffs base their charge of falsity and defamation on the failure of the story to mention the fact that the SEC actually discontinued the suit against them "with prejudice".
In response, defendants argue that the articles were not defamatory, but represented true and accurate reporting of the official proceedings and are, in addition, privileged under section 74 of the Civil Rights Law, which provides that a "civil action cannot be maintained ... for the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding...". The court below dismissed the first cause of action "as sounding in defamation and time barred as to the first article and failing to state a cause of action with respect to the second" and also dismissed the second cause of action. However, the court declined to dismiss the third cause of action. Plaintiffs have not appealed from dismissal of the action with respect to the 1977 article, so only the claims surrounding the 1980 story need be considered.
An examination of the 1980 article, both by itself and in conjunction with the 1977 story, does not reveal anything at all which can be construed as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aronson v. Wiersma
...resolved by the court in the first instance (Tracy v. Newsday, Inc., 5 N.Y.2d 134, 182 N.Y.S.2d 1, 155 N.E.2d 853; Sprecher v. Dow Jones & Co., 88 A.D.2d 550, 450 N.Y.S.2d 330, affd. 58 N.Y.2d 862, 460 N.Y.S.2d 527, 447 N.E.2d 75). The words must be construed in the context of the entire st......
-
Julie Wang v. The Ninety-Nines Inc.
... ... are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory construction ... James v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 419, 386 ... N.Y.S.2d 871, 874-75, 353 N.E.2d 834, 837-38 (1976). To be ... a defamation claim. See Sprecher v. Dow Jones & Co., ... Inc., 450 N.Y.S.2d 330, 88 A.D.2d 550, 551 (1st ... Dep't ... ...
-
Corporate Training v. National Broadcasting Co.
...at 389 (challenged article specifically relied on and cited official investigatory proceedings); Sprecher v. Dow Jones and Co., Inc., 88 A.D.2d 550, 450 N.Y.S.2d 330, 332 (1st Dep't 1982) (challenged article specifically relied on and cited SEC litigation releases); Beary v. West Publishing......
-
Daniel Goldreyer, Ltd. v. Van De Wetering
...Freeze Right Refrig. & Air Conditioning Servs. v. City of New York, 101 A.D.2d 175, 182-183, 475 N.Y.S.2d 383; Sprecher v. Dow Jones & Co., 88 A.D.2d 550, 552, 450 N.Y.S.2d 330, affd. 58 N.Y.2d 862, 460 N.Y.S.2d 527, 447 N.E.2d 75), and "substantially accurate" is interpreted liberally (see......
-
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF REGIONAL NEWS NETWORK IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION AND APPLICATION TO PROVIDE AUDIO-VISUAL COVERAGE OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS.
...core constitutional values, to micro-manage the electronic media in the same fashion.(47) See generally Sprecher v. Dow Jones & Co., 88 A.D.2d 550, 552 (1st Dep't 1982) ("[w]hether or not a particular [broadcast] constitutes unbalanced reporting is essentially a matter involving editori......