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.
Michael F. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC., etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered October 18, 1999, which, upon the prior grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff, a well-known criminal defense attorney who has held a series of public appointments and represented a variety of high-profile individuals, has not hesitated to seek media attention, and did so repeatedly to influence public opinion in connection with his representation of an individual embroiled in a highly publicized insider trading prosecution, which prosecution was a principal subject of the book in which the allegedly libelous passage about plaintiff was published by defendants. Plaintiff was thus properly found by the motion court to be a limited public figure for purposes of this litigation (see, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789; James v. Gannett Co., Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 421-422, 386 N.Y.S.2d 871, 353 N.E.2d 834; Krauss v. Globe Intl., Inc., 251 A.D.2d 191, 192, 674 N.Y.S.2d 662). Given his limited public figure status, plaintiff was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the complained of passage in defendants' book, in addition to being substantially false and defamatory, was published with actual malice, i.e., with “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (see, New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686; Freeman v. Johnston, 84 N.Y.2d 52, 57, 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; Khan v. The New York Times Co., Inc., 269 A.D.2d 74, 77-79, 710 N.Y.S.2d 41). Since plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue as to whether the allegedly libelous passage was, in fact, published with actual malice, defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 27, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)