Davis v. Boeheim

22 N.E.3d 999 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Davis (Ps) sued Boeheim (Ds) for defamation based on statements by Ds in response to Ps' allegations of sexual molestation by Bernie Fine, D's longtime friend, and the team's associate head coach. P claimed that Fine used his position and authority within the University's basketball program to gain access to and control over Ps for purposes of sexually molesting them. From the time they were children in the 1980s, Fine lured them with opportunities to attend the games and assist the team as 'ball boys.' Ps alleged that the sexual abuse continued, on and off campus, on team trips away from the University, in Fine's car and his home. Ps further alleged that D had observed P with Fine at practices, at games, and on trips with the team, including once in Fine's hotel room during the 1987 NCAA Final Four. The Syracuse Police Department cited the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse had expired. P decided to go to the media and reported the abuse to the Syracuse Post-Standard, a daily newspaper servicing the Syracuse area, and ESPN, a national sports television channel. In 2003, ESPN interviewed Ps but failed to publicize his allegations. In September 2005, P reported the sexual abuse to the University's new Chancellor. The University concluded P's allegations were unfounded and had closed the matter. Within two weeks of the initial breaking news coverage of the Penn State story, and as the media focus on the Penn State allegations continued, ESPN issued a news report about the allegations against Fine. The University went public and stated it was unable to corroborate the claims. D reasserted his support for Fine and his denial of any knowledge of the claimed events. D called Ps liars and stated that their allegations were financially motivated. Ps sued Ds claiming that several of D's statements to ESPN, the Post-Standard, and the New York Times, were false and defamatory, and had caused them economic, emotional and reputational harm. Ds filed a motion to dismiss in that the statements were not defamatory as a matter of law because they constituted nonactionable opinion, not facts. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed in a split 3-2 decision. This appeal resulted.