From a decision Friday by Manhattan trial judge Judy Kim:
Plaintiff, [a] resident building manager … brings this defamation action alleging that defendant Jean Mamakos, who owns an apartment in the Building, defamed him by falsely stating, repeatedly, that he had sexually assaulted her. Plaintiff alleged … [that] defendant informed the police officers who reported to the Building that she wished to file a complaint against plaintiff for sexual harassment and sexual assault (though no complaint was ever filed). Later, at a meeting of the Building's board …, defendant stated that plaintiff had threatened to shut off her water unless she performed "sexual favors." {Plaintiff also testified that a plumber who provided services in the Building told him that defendant had repeated these allegations ….} Thereafter, … defendant distributed a flyer to every apartment in the Building stating as follows:
I was sexually attacked/assaulted by super, Joseph Coutelier, in August. I'm the owner in the Colonnade, apartment 32-F for 35 years. If you have anything to add regarding the behavior of this person, I'd be interested in your contacting me. Jean Mamakos
Plaintiff sued; eventually, defendant's lawyer withdrew, defendant didn't hire a new lawyer, and then failed to appear at a conference and otherwise comply with court rules. The court therefore, in effect, granted plaintiff default judgment:
As a result of these failures, this Court (Hon. Frank P. Nervo) issued an order … striking defendant's Answer and setting this matter down for inquest…. At the inquest, plaintiff credibly testified as to the events set forth in the complaint and that defendant's false statements caused him great anxiety about the security of his job and his relationship with the Building's tenants. Defendant appeared at the inquest and argued that plaintiff should not receive any damages because plaintiff had, in fact, "sexually accosted" her in her apartment….
Plaintiff has, through his testimony, met the "minimal" threshold to establish the prima facie validity of his claim…. Though no special harm was established, defendant's false claim that plaintiff sexually assaulted her, a serious crime, constitutes defamation per se.
The court rejected plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction:
"A permanent injunction may issue where plaintiff demonstrates that a violation of a right [is] presently occurring, or threatened and imminent, that [he has] no adequate remedy at law, that serious and irreparable harm will result absent the injunction, and that the equities are balanced in [his] favor." In this case, nothing in the record raises the possibility of prospective harm to plaintiff, as there is no indication that defendant has continued to defame plaintiff during the pendency of this action.
Moreover, even if defendant does engage in such conduct in the future, an adequate remedy exists at law through a subsequent civil or criminal proceeding, ordinarily "the appropriate sanction for calculated defamation or other misdeeds in the First Amendment context," while the prior restraint sought by plaintiff is "strongly disfavored" and generally "not permissible merely to enjoin the publication of libel."
(My research suggest that some New York cases do allow permanent injunctions against repeating statements that had been found defamatory, but others do take a different view.)
But the court did award compensatory damages:
Here, the extremely serious allegations by defendant, which were circulated through the entire Building—which is both his home and workplace—necessarily injured plaintiff's standing in the community, causing him distress. To determine the appropriate compensatory damage, the Court looks to "cases with comparable fact patterns in order to determine what constitutes reasonable compensation" and finds the closest analogue in a trio of Appellate Division, Third Department cases involving plaintiffs who were falsely accused of sexually assaulting children to determining compensatory damages. The compensatory damages awarded in those cases, after adjusting for inflation, ranged from slightly below $200,000.00 to over $300,000.00. To the extent these cases are distinguishable insofar as they involve allegations that plaintiff had sexually assaulted a child, "one of the most loathsome labels in society," the Court concludes that a compensatory damage award of $200,000.00 is appropriate.
And the court held that punitive damages should also be awarded:
Here, plaintiff has established that defendant knew that her statements were untrue and that they would, if credited, damage plaintiff's relationship with the Building's board and residents, and had no other motive aside from animus in making these statements. Indeed, the series of events detailed by plaintiff indicates a clear effort by defendant to have him fired. Looking once again to the Third Department cases referenced above, which awarded punitive damages of nearly $35,000.00 and $47,000, after adjusting for inflation, the Court concludes that punitive damages in the amount of $30,000.00 are appropriate.
Plaintiff was thus awarded $230K plus interest, plus $6K in attorney fees "for the costs of his opposition to defendant's motion to vacate," which had been found to be frivolous.
The post $230K Defamation Award in N.Y. #TheyLied Case Against Apartment Owner Who Alleged Manager Sexually Assaulted Her appeared first on Reason.com.
