W.J.A. v. D.A.

43 A.3d 1148 (2012)

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

D filed a complaint against his uncle, P, alleging P had sexually assaulted him at various times when D was a minor. D sought compensatory and punitive damages, interest, and costs of suit. P denied the allegations and raised the statute of limitations as a defense. D also counterclaimed for frivolous litigation, defamation (both libel and slander), infliction of emotional distress, and violations of his 'statutory and constitutional rights.' The court credited D's claims that P had sexually abused him. That said, P obtained a jury award of $50,000, plus interest after the jury found that D's allegations of P's sexual abuse constituted a false and defamatory statement to a third party. The jury found no malice and did not award punitive damages. P was also awarded $41,323.70 on his frivolous litigation claim. No appeal ensued. D filed for bankruptcy in an attempt to discharge the judgment. The bankruptcy court determined the judgment was non-dischargeable. P obtained a contempt order against D for failure to comply with post-judgment discovery requests. D moved to vacate the judgment against him. D created a website on which he recounted the claimed sexual abuse by P and included the history of and quotations from the trial, along with allegations of perjury and intimidation of a witness. P's attorney asked D's attorney to shut down the site because it contained 'per se defamatory statements' along with the same allegations made in the earlier lawsuit. D received notification of the letter on February 16 and closed the website on February 21. P filed a new complaint alleging that D's website contained defamatory statements. D failed to answer and D moved for the entry of default, which was granted. The judge granted D’s motion to vacate the default but denied the motion to dismiss. P moved for summary judgment. The judge denied the motion. The judge concluded that he could not permit the jury to evaluate P’s claim without any evidence of cognizable damages. P's attorney admitted there will be no testimony because there is none as to economic loss my client might have had because of the statement or business loss they might have had. P's attorney replied that he was 'solely relying on general damages.' The judge concluded that the only proof of damages proffered were 'subjective moral reactions,' which were 'insufficient as a matter of law.' He granted summary judgment to D, dismissing P's complaint with prejudice. The Appellate Division reversed. he panel concluded that 'the right to recover damages in an action premised upon libel without proof of actual harm remains the law in this jurisdiction.' D appealed.