Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Timothy McDONALD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Loretta L. RENFORD, et al., Defendants, Tribune Entertainment Co. and the Investigative News Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
Supreme Court erred in failing to grant in its entirety the motion of defendants Tribune Entertainment Co. and The Investigative News Group, Inc. (collectively, the Geraldo defendants) seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Plaintiff is a City of Buffalo police officer who alleges that he was defamed by comments concerning police brutality made by defendant Loretta L. Renford on a Geraldo Rivera Show that aired on December 4, 1996. The Geraldo defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that they did not act with actual malice (see, Sweeney v. Prisoners' Legal Servs., 84 N.Y.2d 786, 792-793, 622 N.Y.S.2d 896, 647 N.E.2d 101). In support of his contention that a question of fact exists on that issue, plaintiff submitted evidence that the Geraldo defendants failed to perform any investigation whatsoever into Renford's claims before airing them on the show, arguing that the Geraldo defendants acted with actual malice by “purposefully avoiding” the truth (see, Sweeney v. Prisoners' Legal Servs., supra, at 793, 622 N.Y.S.2d 896, 647 N.E.2d 101). However, a “failure to investigate cannot amount to ‘purposeful avoidance’ unless it evidences an intent to avoid the truth” (Sweeney v. Prisoners' Legal Servs., supra, at 793, 622 N.Y.S.2d 896, 647 N.E.2d 101). In the absence of evidence that the Geraldo defendants were aware that Renford's claims were probably false, the Geraldo defendants “cannot be found to have harbored an intent to avoid the truth” (Sweeney v. Prisoners' Legal Servs., supra, at 793, 622 N.Y.S.2d 896, 647 N.E.2d 101). Thus, they were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them (see, Freeman v. Johnston, 84 N.Y.2d 52, 57-58, 614 N.Y.S.2d 377, 637 N.E.2d 268, cert. denied 513 U.S. 1016, 115 S.Ct. 576, 130 L.Ed.2d 492; Gross v. New York Times Co., 281 A.D.2d 299, 724 N.Y.S.2d 16).
Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendants Tribune Entertainment Co. and The Investigative News Group, Inc. dismissed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 08, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)