The case is Stringer v. Kim, decided Monday by N.Y. trial court judge Richard Latin; Scott Stringer is a former New York Assemblyman, New York City Comptroller, Manhattan Borough President, and prominent candidate for New York Mayor in 2021, and is apparently running for Mayor again.
Under New York's "anti-SLAPP statute," plaintiff had to show a "substantial basis" for his lawsuit in order for the case to go forward, and the court said that he did (though of course without deciding the facts):
Plaintiff has adequately plead a substantial basis for his claim of defamation. Plaintiff alleges that, on April 28, 2021, Defendant held a press conference in which she falsely accused plaintiff of sexually assaulting her 20 years earlier, while she worked for Plaintiff's campaign. Defendant also allegedly stated that Plaintiff groped her and put his hands down her pants without her consent. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant repeated these accusations to the press and on social media throughout 2021 and that the accusations were repeated by Congresswoman Maloney in August 2022. These statements, if false, are defamatory per se.
Plaintiff has also adequately pled a substantial basis for actual malice. Plaintiff alleges Defendant engaged in a campaign to ruin his political career after he declined to give her a position in his campaign, and she went to work for his opponent. Plaintiff further alleges that, despite the alleged sexual assault having occurred 20 years earlier, Defendant first raised her allegations during Plaintiff's campaign for mayor, when Plaintiff was gaining momentum in his campaign and the allegations would be widely circulated[.] The defamatory statements were then repeated to the press by Congresswoman Maloney on August 20, 2022, shortly after Defendant attended a campaign event with Maloney, who was running against defendant's mentor.
Thus, for the purposes of the instant motion, Plaintiff has shown a substantial basis in the law for actual malice (see Celle v Filipino Reporter Enterprises Inc. [2d Cir 2000] ["Evidence of ill will combined with other circumstantial evidence indicating that the defendant acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of a defamatory statement may also support a finding of actual malice"]).
Here is the New York intermediate appellate court's decision earlier this year reversing the same trial judge's decision to dismiss the case on statute on statute of limitations grounds:
There is no dispute that defendant's original statements concerning plaintiff were made in April 2021, which is more than a year before this action was commenced, and therefore fall outside the statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 215(3). Thus, the burden shifts to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact as to whether the statute of limitations has been tolled or whether an exception to the limitations period is applicable.
Here, plaintiff alleges that defendant republished her original defamatory statements concerning him when a third party, then Congresswoman Maloney, was quoted in a newspaper article making reference to those statements. "Republication, retriggering the period of limitations, occurs upon a separate aggregate publication from the original, on a different occasion, which is not merely a delayed circulation of the original edition." Retriggering by republication also requires that the original publisher of the statement participate in or approve of the decision to republish the allegedly defamatory statement.
Here, the pleadings as to the proximity in time between the August 3, 2022 Maloney campaign event where defendant was present, and the subsequent August 20, 2022 New York Post article quoting Maloney, raises an issue of fact as to whether defendant had a role in or authorized the decision to make the allegedly defamatory comments.
Kim also sued Stringer, alleging sexual abuse; you can read the Complaint and the Answer.
The post #TheyLied Libel Claim Brought by N.Y. Mayoral Candidate Accused of Sexual Assault Can Go Forward appeared first on Reason.com.
