Title: Lynch v. New Jersey Education Association
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-219-97
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: July 27, 1999

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). POLLOCK, J., writing for a unanimous Court. This appeal involves a claim by New Jersey State Senator John A. Lynch, Jr., alleging that defendants defamed him during his successful campaign for re-election. In the 1991 campaign for state senator in the Seventeenth District, Senator Lynch, a Democrat and the incumbent, was running against Edward Tiller, a Republican. The other defendants are Tiller's supporters and members of his campaign organization. Prominent among them is the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), and its Political Action Committee (NJEAPAC). The NJEA challenged Senator Lynch because he had been the principal sponsor of the Quality Education Act. The involvement of the NJEA and NJEAPAC in Tiller's campaign extended beyond funding. They organized his campaign headquarters and provided him with office equipment and personnel. Two months before the election, Wayne Dibofsky, the NJEA's Associate Director for Governmental Relations, and defendant Karen Joseph, its Associate Director for Media Relations, moved their offices to Tiller's campaign headquarters. Dibofsky, a lobbyist, and Joseph reviewed campaign literature. Joseph also wrote speeches and press releases for Tiller. Defendant Barry Brendel, a political consultant, was hired by the Tiller campaign organization. Five years earlier, Lynch had retained Brendel, of defendant Barry Brendel Associates, as a political consultant during Lynch's 1986 campaign for mayor of New Brunswick. Brendel drafted most of the material reviewed by Dibofsky and Joseph. Tiller gave final approval to all published material. The campaign was marked on both sides by invective. Senator Lynch issued advertisements claiming that Tiller had lied about his military service, educational background, business experience, and qualifications. In his complaint, Senator Lynch alleges that the Tiller organization's campaign materials, specifically a newspaper advertisement, a mailer, and a flier, defamed him. The advertisement described Senator Lynch as "THE BOSS OF BOSSES," and claimed he was a partner or officer of "mob-owned companies fined for illegal toxic dumping." Further, it described the people with whom the Senator keeps company: "Mobsters as business partners. Mobsters as clients." The Tiller campaign also distributed a postcard mailer, repeating many of the allegations of the "Boss of Bosses" advertisement. It also quoted from a book by Alan A. Block and Frank R. Scarpitti, Poisoning for Profit: The Mafia and Toxic Waste in America (1985), describing "John A. Lynch, Jr., the Mayor of New Brunswick" as being an owner of a mob-run company that was illegally disposing of toxic waste. The flier was not identified as originating with the Tiller organization, and defendants deny any responsibility for it. This flier stated that, "John Lynch is CONNECTED to the UNDERWORLD," and attached a photo of an article from a local newspaper. The article described a suspect in a "mob hit" as a member of the Genovese crime family and Lynch's brother-in-law. It concluded: "Our County and State Deserve Better than a MOB-CONNECTED POLITICIAN." Dibofsky and Joseph admitted responsibility for editing and verifying the campaign materials. They asserted, however, that the information in the "Boss of Bosses" advertisement and the mailer came from a reputable newspaper and from the book, Poisoning for Profit. Joseph had verified the information printed in the book with one of the book's authors. Senator Lynch insists that the "John Lynch" described in Poisoning for Profit is another person, John G. Lynch. In 1985, he obtained from the publisher a letter promising to correct any misstatements. Senator Lynch also contends that from Brendel's work on Lynch's previous campaign, Brendel knew that Senator Lynch was not the John G. Lynch identified in the book. All defendants moved for summary judgment. They argued that the statements were not libelous as a matter of law, and also that Senator Lynch could not show by clear and convincing evidence that the statements had been published with actual malice. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Senator Lynch, the Law Division denied defendants' motions. It determined that the material was reasonably susceptible to a defamatory meaning, and that ample evidence existed of defendants' malice. The trial court refused to consider some of defendants' motions, including Brendel's, because they were untimely. The Appellate Division reversed in an unpublished decision, and remanded for entry of an order granting defendants' motions. Senator Lynch petitioned for certification. The Supreme Court remanded to the Law Division for reconsideration of those defendants' motions that had been denied as untimely. The Law Division entered summary judgment for all defendants, interpreting the Appellate Division decision as holding that none of the statements were defamatory. This Court granted Senator Lynch's motion for direct certification and his petition for certification. HELD: With the possible exception of Brendel, the evidence does not establish that the defendants published defamatory information with actual malice. The complaint must be dismissed as to all defendants except Brendel. 1. A statement is defamatory if it is false, communicated to a third person, and tends to lower the subject's reputation. False statements about public officials are not defamatory unless published with actual malice. The actual malice standard requires that the publisher either knew the statement was false or published with reckless disregard for the truth. To prove publication with reckless disregard for the truth, a plaintiff must show that the statement was published with a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity. (pp. 9-16) 2. The primary issue in this appeal is whether Senator Lynch's proofs suffice to demonstrate publication with actual malice. The "Boss of Bosses" advertisement stated that Senator Lynch was a "partner or officer in three mob-owned companies fined for illegal toxic dumping." Defendants rely on the book, Poisoning for Profit, as the source of this information and to demonstrate that the statement was not published with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Senator Lynch produced evidence showing that the John Lynch referenced in the book was a different person. Although defendants certainly could have been more careful, the mere failure to investigate all sources does not prove actual malice. (pp. 17-22) 3. As to Brendel and Barry Brendel Associates, however, the record is different. According to Senator Lynch, he previously had shown Brendel a letter from the publisher of Poisoning for Profit acknowledging that Senator Lynch was not the John Lynch referenced in the book. Thus, a jury could conclude that Brendel entertained serious doubts about Senator Lynch's role in the chemical companies. Because neither of the lower courts has considered the question whether Brendel had serious doubts about the statements, the matter is remanded to the Law Division for resolution of that issue. (pp. 22-23) 4. Other statements complained of by Senator Lynch are opinion or hyperbole, and therefore not defamatory. Those contained in the flier cannot be linked to defendants. The factual statements about officials in Lynch's administration being indicted and convicted are literally true, at least in regard to two officials. (pp. 23-28) 5. The Court's holding should not be construed as an endorsement of either the statements or the process that produced them. Freedom of speech tolerates the publication of false and misleading statements like these to avoid stifling debate on matters of public concern. (p. 28) The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED as to all defendants except Brendel and Barry Brendel Associates. As to these two defendants, the matter is REMANDED to the Law Division. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN join in JUSTICE POLLOCK's opinion. HONORABLE JOHN A. LYNCH, JR., NEW JERSEY STATE SENATOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, BETTY KRAEMER, KAREN JOSEPH, EDWARD TILLER, GERALD MATCHO, BARRY BRENDEL, WAYNE DIBOFSKY and BARRY BRENDEL ASSOCIATES, Defendants-Respondents, and NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION UNITED STAFF ASSOCIATION, INC., NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION, JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE, INC., Defendants. Argued January 4, 1999 -- Decided July 27, 1999 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division and the Superior Court, Law Division, Camden County. Stephen M. Holden and James E. Beasley, a member of the Pennsylvania bar argued the cause for appellant(Beasley, Casey &amp; Erbstein, attorneys). Thomas F. Carroll, III, argued the cause for respondents New Jersey Education Association, Betty Kraemer and Gerald Matcho (Hill Wallack, attorneys; Mr. Carroll and Gerard H. Hanson, on the brief). Mark E. Utke argued the cause for respondent Wayne Dibofsky (Margolis Edelstein, attorneys). John L Slimm argued the cause for respondent Karen Joseph (Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &amp; Goggin, attorneys; Kay E. Sickles, on the brief). Vincent J. Nuzzi argued the cause for respondents Barry Brendel and Barry Brendel Associates (Lorber, Schneider, Nuzzi, Bilinkas &amp; Mason, attorneys; Sandra A. Creighton, on the brief). Thomas J. Cafferty argued the cause for amicus curiae, New Jersey Press Association (McGimpsey &amp; Cafferty, attorneys; Mr. Cafferty and Arlene M. Turinchak, on the brief). William C. Cagney, on behalf of the respondent Edward Tiller, submitted a letter in lieu of brief relying upon the briefs submitted on behalf of the respondents New Jersey Education Association, et al. and Barry Brendel, et al. (Lane &amp; Mittendorf, attorneys). The opinion of the Court was delivered by POLLOCK, J. Plaintiff, New Jersey State Senator John A. Lynch, Jr., claims that defendants defamed him during his successful campaign for re election as a state senator. The Law Division denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In an unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division reversed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the Law Division. NO. 219/220 HONORABLE JOHN A. LYNCH, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants-Respondents, and NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION UNITED STAFF ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants. DECIDED