Steak Bit of Westbury, Inc. v. Newsday, Inc.

Decision Date22 June 1972
PartiesSTEAK BIT OF WESTBURY, INC., Plaintiff, v. NEWSDAY, INC. and Stan Isaacs, Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court
MEMORANDUM

BERTRAM HARNETT, Justice.

The fact that a featured newspaper article likely will never be in the running for the Pulitzer Prize, nor even be a model for a journalism workshop, is excusable. But, can it blithely knock a public restaurant? And in Yiddish, yet?

I. The Published Statements

An article headed 'The Eat-Out on Old Country Road' was written by Stan Isaacs, a regular feature columnist for Newsday, a daily Long Island newspaper, and appeared in his May 3, 1971 column. It spun a yarn of five couples, dubbed 'The Old Country Road Food and Wine Society Take-Out Restaurant Clambake', making a food sampling tour of twelve 'take-out' restaurants located along a mile and one-half stretch of Old Country Road in Westbury, New York.

Isaacs described various experiences and anecdotes of tasting and commenting in each successive eating place, and in the 'Gluttons' Report' appearing in the center of the article presented a table of ratings for 'Food Quality' and 'Food Quality Adjusted for Other Factors', in which Lollypop Drive-In (a restaurant owned by the plaintiff Steak Bit of Westbury, inc., a corporation), was rated lowest on both scores, twelfth out of the twelve places visited.

The article went on to describe the group's cumulative assessment of its gourmet tour:

'A spokesman for the negative said 'On the whole I thought it was a pretty unappetizing group of eating places. It was mostly all fake food, ground-up schmutz". (emphasis added)

These statements are claimed by Lollypop's owner to be libelous resulting in general damage to its goodwill and reputation. In their motion for summary judgment, Newsday and Isaacs place no reliance upon the literal truth of the statements made, but they do claim that the article is light-humored and in no way reflects malice towards Lollypop or any other restaurant.

II. The Contested Language Does Not Add Up To Defamation

In order to be defamatory, a statement must convey a degrading imputation. 34 N.Y.Jur., Libel and Slander, § 7, p. 476. See, O'Connell v. Press Publishing Co., 214 N.Y. 352, 103 N.E. 556. In the case of claimed defamation of a corporation the test is whether the published statement relates to its business so as to affect the confidence of the public and drive away its customers. See, Reporters' Assn. v. Sun Printing and Publishing Assn., 186 N.Y. 437, 79 N.E. 710; Isaacs v. Pan American Trading Co., 7 A.D.2d 757, 181 N.Y.S.2d 19. However, where, as here, special damages are not claimed, Drug Research Corp. v. Curtis Publishing Co., 7 N.Y.2d 435, 441, 199 N.Y.S.2d 33, 37, 166 N.E.2d 319, 322; Kings Creations, Ltd. v. Conde Nast Publications, Inc., 34 A.D.2d 935, 311 N.Y.S.2d 757, 'mere disparagement of the quality' of a product or service sold to the public is not libelous, in and of itself. Marlin Firearms Co. v. Shields, 171 N.Y. 384, 64 N.E. 163. The words written must go further than a bare opinion of quality. They must import that the supposedly libelling party is 'guilty of deceit or malpractice', or impute to him 'dishonesty, fraud, deception, or other misconduct in his trade'. Le Massena v. Storm, 62 App.Div. 150, 154, 155, 70 N.Y.S. 882, 884; Harwood Pharmacal Co., Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 9 N.Y.2d 460, 463, 214 N.Y.S.2d 725, 727, 174 N.E.2d 602, 603; Payrolls and Tabulating, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp., 22 A.D.2d 595, 257 N.Y.S.2d 884; Tracy v. Newsday, Inc., 5 N.Y.2d 134, 182 N.Y.S.2d 1, 155 N.E.2d 853.

A. Anecdotes and Quality Rating

The sought humorous tone of Isaacs' article does not obscure the ostensible purpose of the tour--to evaluate in a casual and thoroughly lightheaded manner the quality of service and food in twelve neighborhood restaurants. The article itself reflects the purpose of conveying the restaurant ratings, as well as the amusing experiences of people on a party, to Newsday readers.

The low comparative evaluation of Lollypop in the 'Gluttons' Report' in the manner presented is essentially a statement about quality of food, service and 'other factors' which, though uncomplimentary like the description 'pretty unappetizing group of eating places', is nonetheless devoid of any apparent implication of fraud or dishonest practice. Nor does the one statement made specifically about plaintiff, 'A suggestion to try only the pinball machines at the Lollypop Drive-In was rejected for an order of fried clams', seem substantial in derogatory content.

The characterization of the tour, generally, as one of 'take-out' restaurants is not believed defamatory as to Lollypop, which, as described in the complaint, is a 'Drive-In', has outdoor eating facilities and derives ten per cent of its business from take-out trade. Even were the characterization inaccurate, there is not a sufficient derogation in the 'take-out' description to be defamatory of an eat-in place, particularly one which, by its own statements, is not 'like a fancy Manhattan restaurant'.

B. Schmutz and Fake Food

The statement which Lollypop most vigorously resents is the reference to the group of twelve places in these terms: 'It was mostly all fake food, ground-up schmutz'. (emphasis supplied). This is the crux of this case.

The words used reflect a lack of focus upon any one or several eating places. The general and somewhat vague terms used, 'mostly' and 'on the whole', indicate that some places visited were not subject to the general condemnation of the 'negative' spokesman, although it is improbable that Lollypop, in view of its double low rating in the 'Gluttons' Report' could escape the impact of the description.

But, the fact that the article does not mention the plaintiff by name, does not render the statement free of libel if derogatory import may be fairly derived and attributable to Lollypop. Harwood Pharmacal Co., Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., Supra. Moreover, in assessing content, it is immaterial that the author may not have intended a defamatory interpretation since libel is judged by what the reader might reasonably understand the words to mean. Cheatum v. Wehle, 5 N.Y.2d 585, 594, 186 N.Y.S.2d 606, 612, 159 N.E.2d 166, 171.

'Schmutz' is a word in wide use in Yiddish parlance, although like many such expressions is also German in content. In generally accepted pronunciation, the word rhymes with 'puts'. It means, 'dirt, filth, smut, mud', New Cassel's German Dictionary, p. 408 (1958). In these times, Yiddish phrases enjoy a currency quite beyond any one cultural assemblage, although it must be noted that 'schmutz' fails to make Leo Rosten's, The Joys of Yiddish (1968).

The real meaning of the statements in the context of the article is not literal, but rather denotive of quality. If one labels food as 'schmutz' or 'fake food', the impression created is that of unclean servings, a mixture of cheap or odd ingredients, and artificial taste. Apparently, in the opinion of at least some on the tour, the food eaten had these aspects.

In basic point, the statements objected to more closely resemble a graphic extension of the preceding generalized opinion by a 'spokesman for the negative', stylistically dramatized by exaggeration and metaphor, that most of the food consumed was 'unappetizing'. In contrast, the article also mentioned that there was a positive side expressed on the tour. Hence, the words objected to, when fairly assessed in light of contemporary usage, do not impute to the corporate plaintiff any deceitful or fraudulent business practices.

III. 'Fair Comment' Can Be Printed About A Public Place

Even assuming that the article had defamatory content, Lollypop, as a public facility, must show more than a published false statement to recover. It must overcome the qualified privilege of fair comment which protects criticism of institutions serving the public. Dolcin Corp. v. Reader's Digest Assn., 7 A.D.2d 449, 456, 183 N.Y.S.2d 342, 349.

A. When Commentary Is Not 'Fair'

Under recent United States Supreme Court pronouncements, comment upon the activities of a public figure or private individual's involvement in an event of public interest is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment's guaranty of free speech and a free press. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 91 S.Ct. 1811, 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971). Certainly, a restaurant which serves food to the general public is involved in an enterprise of public interest. Twenty-Five East 40th St. Restaurant Corp. v. Forbes, Inc., 37 A.D.2d 546, 322 N.Y.S.2d 408; see, Matter of Figari v. New York Telephone Co., 32 A.D.2d 434, 303 N.Y.S.2d 245; Fotochrome, Inc. v. New York Herald Tribune, Inc., 61 Misc.2d 226, 305 N.Y.S.2d 168. Witness the state regulation and licensing of the standard and quality of food served, Agriculture and Markets Law, § 199--a; Public Health Law, § 1350, and laws as to admission of patrons. Civil Rights Law, § 40; Executive Law, § 296. Preservation of freedom to write about restaurants, to criticize or compliment, is another form of safeguard, and is a vital channel through which the public's right to know is protected.

Therefore, commentaries in a newspaper about a public restaurant's service and food even if false are immune from defamation liability unless a showing is made that the statements were motivated by malice or made with wanton disregard. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). Twenty-Five East 40th St. Restaurant Corp. v. Forbes, Inc., Supra; Garfinkel v. Twenty-First Century Publishing Co., 30 A.D.2d 787, 291 N.Y.S.2d 735, appeal dismissed, 22 N.Y..2d 970, 295 N.Y.S.2d 336, 242 N.E.2d 487; All Diet Foods Distributors, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 56...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Pub. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • October 21, 1986
    ...transportation, banking, insurance; and to innumerable other subjects involving the public welfare"); Steak Bit of Westbury v. Newsday, Inc., 70 Misc.2d 437, 334 N.Y.S.2d 325 (1972) (restaurant criticism is in public interest because of state regulation of food quality). Historically, resta......
  • Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, Inc.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • November 7, 2002
    ...41. Id. at 449-50. 42. Id. at 454 (citations omitted). 43. See, e.g., Greer, 448 N.E.2d at 162; Steak Bit of Westbury, Inc. v. Newsday, Inc., 70 Misc.2d 437, 334 N.Y.S.2d 325, 330 (Sup.Ct.1972); Twenty-Five E. 40th St. Rest. Corp. v. Forbes, Inc., 37 A.D.2d 546, 322 N.Y.S.2d 408, 409 (1971)......
  • Commercial Programming Unlimited v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1975
    ...443, 285 N.Y.S.2d 456 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co.1967), aff'd, 32 A.D.2d 520, 299 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1st Dept. 1969); Steak Bit of Westbury, Inc. v. Newsday, Inc., 70 Misc.2d 437, 334 N.Y.S.2d 325 (Sup.Ct. Nassau Co. Finally, the court commends counsel for both sides for their scholarly discussion of the is......
  • Mr. Chow of New York v. Ste. Jour Azur S.A., 519
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 28, 1985
    ...Publishing Co., 5 Med.L.Rep. (BNA) 2005 (Fla.Cir.Ct.1979); Mashburn v. Collin, 355 So.2d 879 (La.1977); Steak Bit of Westbury, Inc. v. Newsday, Inc., 70 Misc.2d 437, 334 N.Y.S.2d 325 (Sup.Ct. Nassau County 1972); Twenty-Five East 40th Street Restaurant Corp. v. Forbes, Inc., 37 A.D.2d 546, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT