New York Court of Appeals, 1981

Roche v. Hearst Corp.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 7, 1981

53 N.Y.2d 767; 421 N.E.2d 844; 439 N.Y.S.2d 352; 7 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1208; 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2376

Cases that cite this one

42 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Sun Yau Ko v. Lincoln Savings Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Swiezy v. Investigative Post, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Kesner v. Buhl (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
Han Hao Huang v. "John Doe" (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Yong Dong Liu v. Lowe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Bentick v. Gatchalian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Gallo v. Jairath (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Kipper v. NYP Holdings Co. (N.Y. 2009)
Nekos v. Kraus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Proskin v. Hearst Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Romana v. NYRAC, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Realty Development Co. v. Jackson (Civil Court of the City of New York 1995)
Farrakhan v. N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1995)
Suozzi v. Parente (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Ann Mary J. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Ferretti v. Town of Greenburgh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Rivera v. Wyckoff Heights Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Pizzi v. Bradlee's Division of Stop & Shop, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
King v. Tanner (New York Supreme Court 1989)
Ho Jo Contracting Co. v. Schultz Ford, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Kramer v. Griffin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Mendez v. Apple Bank for Savings (Civil Court of the City of New York 1989)
Scott v. Manilla (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Powles v. Wean United Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Richmond Hill Savings Bank v. Sisters of Order of St. Dominic (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Although some might characterize the articles in question as somewhat sensational, on the record before us *769we can find no triable issues of fact as to their literal falsity. Plaintiff’s complaint conclusorily alleges only that the implicated statements were “wholly false and without foundation”. His bill of particulars does little more than assert that if additional facts had been included in the articles and editorials there would have been a more balanced picture of the actual circumstances surrounding plaintiff’s activities. As it was, he complains that it created adverse inferences. That was not enough.

Further, in opposing summary judgment, the plaintiff relies solely upon the affirmation of his attorney, who was without personal knowledge of the facts. This did not supply the evidentiary showing necessary to successfully resist the motion (see CPLR 3212, subd [b]; Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 229, n 4).

Moreover, since this is a public figure libel case, it was incumbent on the plaintiff upon defendant’s motion for summary judgment to produce evidence tending to demonstrate both the falsity of the published statements and that they were made with actual malice, i.e., deliberate or reckless falsehood (New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 280). Plaintiff comes no closer to meeting such a prescription than to have his attorney argue that Albany newspapers “would like nothing better than to crucify the so-called ‘O’Connell’ and/or ‘Corning’ machines” and to point out that defendant’s reporters admitted that their investigatory techniques included misrepresentation of their identities. In doing so, the plaintiff ignores the fact that malice in the context of this litigation would not “be equated with a base or unworthy motive” (Rinaldi v Viking Penguin, 52 NY2d 422).

Finally, plaintiff’s argument that summary judgment should be denied because all the facts as to malice were within the knowledge of the defendants is equally lacking in merit. While CPLR 3212 (subd [f]) authorizes discovery in such circumstances, the record does not demonstrate that plaintiff availed himself of such procedures during the three years that elapsed between commencement of the action and the making of the summary judgment motion (see 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3212.18, pp 32-194 to 32-195).

*770Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.