Prince v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Advocates

Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York (Katherine M. Bolger of counsel), for appellants. Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, New York (Adam Julien Gana of counsel), for respondents.

Judges

Peter Tom
Leland G. DeGrasse
Helen E. Freedman
Rosalyn H. Richter
Sheri S. Roman

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from a motion to dismiss filed by defendants Fox Television Stations, Inc., and others, against claims brought by plaintiffs Matthew Prince, individually and on behalf of D'Lites L.A.M.D. B.H. Inc. The plaintiffs alleged defamation and product disparagement stemming from a consumer report broadcast by the defendants concerning a D'Lites ice cream store located in Babylon, New York. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. The defendants appealed that decision, leading to the present appellate review.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the plaintiff D'Lites L.A.M.D. B.H. Inc. sufficiently pleaded that the alleged defamatory consumer report was "of and concerning" the plaintiff to support a defamation claim.
Whether the plaintiffs' product disparagement claim should be dismissed due to failure to plead special damages, specifically damages related to lost customers, with the required specificity.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Giaimo v. Literary Guild, 79 A.D.2d 917, 434 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1981)	Defamation claim requires that the defamatory statement be "of and concerning" the plaintiff.	The court held that plaintiff met the burden of pleading that the defamatory consumer report was "of and concerning" the plaintiff.
Golden Bear Distrib. Sys. v. Chase Revel, Inc., 708 F.2d 944 (5th Cir. 1983)	General principles related to defamation claims and identification of the plaintiff.	Referenced generally to support the sufficiency of the pleading that the defamatory report concerned the plaintiff.
Drug Research Corp. v. Curtis Publ. Co., 7 N.Y.2d 435, 199 N.Y.S.2d 33, 166 N.E.2d 319 (1960)	Product disparagement claims require pleading special damages with specificity.	The court dismissed the product disparagement claim to the extent it sought damages for lost customers due to failure to plead such damages with requisite specificity.
Christopher Lisa Matthew Policano, Inc. v. North Am. Precis Syndicate, 129 A.D.2d 488, 514 N.Y.S.2d 239 (1987)	Requirement for specificity in pleading special damages in product disparagement claims.	Applied to support dismissal of product disparagement claim related to lost customers.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' pleadings with respect to both defamation and product disparagement claims. For defamation, the court found that plaintiff D'Lites L.A.M.D. B.H. Inc. adequately pleaded that the allegedly defamatory consumer report was "of and concerning" the plaintiff, satisfying a key element of defamation law as established in Giaimo and supported by Golden Bear Distrib. Sys.. Regarding the product disparagement claim, the court determined that plaintiffs failed to plead special damages—specifically damages for lost customers—with the particularity required under New York law. This requirement, grounded in precedents such as Drug Research Corp. and Christopher Lisa Matthew Policano, Inc., led the court to modify the order by dismissing the product disparagement claim insofar as it sought damages for lost customers. The remainder of the claims were affirmed.

Holding and Implications

The court unanimously modified the Supreme Court's order to the extent of dismissing the product disparagement claim related to damages for lost customers due to insufficient pleading of special damages. In all other respects, the order denying defendants' motion to dismiss was affirmed without costs.

This decision directly affects the parties by narrowing the scope of recoverable damages under the product disparagement claim but leaves the defamation claim intact. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond applying established pleading standards.

Show full summary ...

Matthew PRINCE, Indi v. dually and on Behalf of D'Lites L.A.M.D. B.H. Inc., Plaintiffs–Respondents,

Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York (Katherine M. Bolger of counsel), for appellants. Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, New York (Adam Julien Gana of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered November 23, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the defamation claim of plaintiff D'Lites L.A.M.D. B.H. Inc. and the product disparagement claim of plaintiffs relating to a D'Lites ice cream store in Babylon, New York, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the product disparagement claim in connection with damages for lost customers, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff D'Lites L.A.M.D. B.H. Inc. sustained its burden of pleading that the alleged defamatory consumer report produced and broadcast by defendants was “of and concerning” plaintiff ( see Giaimo v. Literary Guild, 79 A.D.2d 917, 434 N.Y.S.2d 419 [1981]; see generally Golden Bear Distrib. Sys. v. Chase Revel, Inc., 708 F.2d 944 [5th Cir.1983] ).

Plaintiffs' product disparagement claim should have been dismissed to the extent it seeks damages in connection with lost customers, as plaintiffs failed to plead such special damages with the requisite specificity ( see Drug Research Corp. v. Curtis Publ. Co., 7 N.Y.2d 435, 440–441, 199 N.Y.S.2d 33, 166 N.E.2d 319 [1960]; Christopher Lisa Matthew Policano, Inc. v. North Am. Precis Syndicate, 129 A.D.2d 488, 490, 514 N.Y.S.2d 239 [1987] ).

TOM, J.P., DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, RICHTER, ROMÁN, JJ., concur.