Joel N. Kreizman
Partner
732-568-8363 jkreizman@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Actual Malice Proofs—Meant to Be Difficult, Not Impossible Part I
Author: Joel N. Kreizman
Date: February 22, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
When a public figure brings a defamation lawsuit, he is required to prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, meaning he must present evidence that the defendant knew his statement to be false or that he had serious doubts as to the statement’s veracity. The public figure’s burden is meant to be difficult; it is not, however, meant to be impossible.
If a recent ruling by the Judge Panel of the Appellate Division represents the state of the law, then the chances of a public figure succeeding in a defamation case are about nil. In that case, Schneider v. Unger, (App. Div. Jan. 10, 2013), the Mayor of Long Branch sued his electoral opponents, who had accused him of taking bribes from Solomon Dwek. The defendants argued they relied on Dwek’s testimony in Federal Court as the basis for their assertions. It was a case in which Dwek was a government witness as the agent provocateur in a sting against officials from towns that did not include Long Branch. Neither Schneider or his attorneys, thus, had the opportunity to cross-examine.
The mere existence of that under oath testimony, according to the Appellate Panel, was a sufficient basis to dismiss Mayor Schneider’s claims.
Yet, while the standard for considering whether actual malice exists, i.e., what the defendant knew or believed when he made the allegedly defamatory statement, is subjective, courts have created objective criteria for making that determination. As the Supreme Court observed in Durando v. The Nutley Sun, 209 N.J. 235 (2012):
Although the actual malice standard is difficult to meet, a plaintiff will satisfy that standard – despite an editor’s professions of good faith – if he can show a story was “fabricated by the defendant, is the product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. St. Amant [v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727] at 732. Likewise, a publisher will not prevail when his allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation or when “there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of an informant or the accuracy of his reports. (Emphasis added).
Solomon Dwek is someone who had lied to numerous investors while he pilfered their funds, had forged documents at will and whose skill at prevarication led the government to use him in misleading targeted officials. If ever there were “obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of an informant or the accuracy of his reports,” it was presented in the Schneider case.
Yet the Appellate Division never considered Dwek’s well known history, incredibly relying on Dwek’s under oath allegations as the basis to affirm the Trial Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Actual Malice Proofs—Meant to Be Difficult, Not Impossible Part I
Author: Joel N. Kreizman
When a public figure brings a defamation lawsuit, he is required to prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, meaning he must present evidence that the defendant knew his statement to be false or that he had serious doubts as to the statement’s veracity. The public figure’s burden is meant to be difficult; it is not, however, meant to be impossible.
If a recent ruling by the Judge Panel of the Appellate Division represents the state of the law, then the chances of a public figure succeeding in a defamation case are about nil. In that case, Schneider v. Unger, (App. Div. Jan. 10, 2013), the Mayor of Long Branch sued his electoral opponents, who had accused him of taking bribes from Solomon Dwek. The defendants argued they relied on Dwek’s testimony in Federal Court as the basis for their assertions. It was a case in which Dwek was a government witness as the agent provocateur in a sting against officials from towns that did not include Long Branch. Neither Schneider or his attorneys, thus, had the opportunity to cross-examine.
The mere existence of that under oath testimony, according to the Appellate Panel, was a sufficient basis to dismiss Mayor Schneider’s claims.
Yet, while the standard for considering whether actual malice exists, i.e., what the defendant knew or believed when he made the allegedly defamatory statement, is subjective, courts have created objective criteria for making that determination. As the Supreme Court observed in Durando v. The Nutley Sun, 209 N.J. 235 (2012):
Although the actual malice standard is difficult to meet, a plaintiff will satisfy that standard – despite an editor’s professions of good faith – if he can show a story was “fabricated by the defendant, is the product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. St. Amant [v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727] at 732. Likewise, a publisher will not prevail when his allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation or when “there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of an informant or the accuracy of his reports. (Emphasis added).
Solomon Dwek is someone who had lied to numerous investors while he pilfered their funds, had forged documents at will and whose skill at prevarication led the government to use him in misleading targeted officials. If ever there were “obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of an informant or the accuracy of his reports,” it was presented in the Schneider case.
Yet the Appellate Division never considered Dwek’s well known history, incredibly relying on Dwek’s under oath allegations as the basis to affirm the Trial Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants.