Summary
holding that the single instance rule was inapplicable because "the articles charged the plaintiff with committing a series of incompetent and unethical acts."
Summary of this case from Conti v. DoeOpinion
November 10, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, and a new trial is granted limited to the issue of damages only, without costs or disbursements, unless, within 30 days after service upon the plaintiff of a copy of this decision and order, together with notice of entry thereof, the plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages to the principal sum of $75,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly. In the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, with costs. The findings of fact as to liability are affirmed.
Viewing the statements complained of in the context of the challenged articles as a whole and construing them from the standpoint of the average reader (see, Aronson v Wiersma, 65 N.Y.2d 592; James v Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415, rearg denied 40 N.Y.2d 990; November v Time Inc., 13 N.Y.2d 175), we find that the record contains ample evidence to sustain the jury's determination that the allegedly libelous factual statements were both false and defamatory. Moreover, while we are cognizant of the fact that expressions of opinion are afforded constitutional protection (see, Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283; Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart Winston, 42 N.Y.2d 369, rearg denied 42 N.Y.2d 1015, cert denied 434 U.S. 969; Tanner Gilbert v Verno, 92 A.D.2d 802, appeal dismissed 60 N.Y.2d 632), recovery may be had for defamatory opinions where, as here, the plaintiff is able to demonstrate the falsity of the facts underlying those opinions and thereby "convince the triers of fact that the factual disparities would affect the conclusions drawn by the average reader regarding the validity of the opinions expressed" (Silsdorf v Levine, 59 N.Y.2d 8, 15-16, cert denied 464 U.S. 831; see, Ocean State Seafood v Capital Newspaper, 112 A.D.2d 662).
Similarly, the record supports a finding that the defendant New York News, Inc. (hereinafter the News), "acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties" (Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 N.Y.2d 196, 199) in publishing the libelous statements. The jury was entitled to rely upon the trial evidence indicating that the News had reason to doubt the accuracy of its sources and facts and that the true facts were easily accessible upon proper investigation (see generally, Zucker v County of Rockland, 111 A.D.2d 325; Bruno v New York Daily News Co., 89 A.D.2d 260; Hogan v Herald Co., 84 A.D.2d 470; affd 58 N.Y.2d 630).
We discern no error in the trial court's decision to exclude the reporter's notes from evidence, as the record reveals that they were offered not only for their probative value on the issue of gross irresponsibility, but also to demonstrate their consistency with the reporter's testimony. As such, the attempted use of the notes as corroborative evidence rendered them hearsay, and their exclusion was proper because they failed to qualify as business records (see, CPLR 4518). In any event, the jury was made fully aware of the existence of the notes, for the reporter repeatedly referred to them during his testimony. Hence, the trial court's ruling did not prejudice the News.
We further conclude, as a matter of law, that the single instance rule is inapplicable to this case, for the articles charged the plaintiff with committing a series of incompetent and unethical acts (see, Ocean State Seafood v Capital Newspaper, supra), and these charges of multiple instances of alleged professional misconduct effectively accused the plaintiff of general incompetence and dishonesty in his profession (see, November v Time Inc., supra; Mason v Sullivan, 26 A.D.2d 115).
A review of the record reveals that the award of damages is excessive to the extent indicated.
We have considered the remaining contentions of the News and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.