Opinion ID: 703880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Defamation Claim and Damages Generally

Text: 61 In challenging the judgment on the defamation claim, appellants assert that plaintiff did not prove a single item of damage from the alleged defamation, except for Mr. Cook's statement that there must have been someone out there who did not deal with the plaintiff because of the defendants' statements. Mr. Cook is Robert Cook, President of Securitron. Citing Wachs v. Winter, 569 F.Supp. 1438, 1443 (E.D.N.Y.1983), as well as N.Y.Jur.2d Defamation and Privacy Sec. 212, appellants contend that defamation damages are limited to actual or compensatory damages commensurate with the harm suffered and that [t]here was no showing that any specific statement caused any harm at all. 62 Contrary to appellants' contention, Robert Cook gave extensive testimony regarding the damages sustained by his company. The evidence demonstrated that specific customers, such as the Newark Board of Education and HHC, had stopped dealing with Securitron. Cook testified to a flattening out of otherwise increasing yearly sales, which he estimated to reflect the loss of $500,000 in sales and $200,000 in lost profits. Cook was entitled to prove damages through a projection of lost profits based on evidence of record regarding decreased sales. See Teen-Ed, Inc. v. Kimball Int'l, Inc., 620 F.2d 399, 404 (3rd Cir.1980). Cook's projections provided the jury with a reasonable basis upon which to calculate lost profit damages. See Sir Speedy, Inc. v. L & P Graphics, Inc., 957 F.2d 1033, 1038 (2d Cir.1992). Securitron's president was fully capable of examining the company's sales over a period of years, noting a slow-down, and testifying to the estimated losses attributable to the defamatory and fraudulent activities of appellants. 63 Fed.R.Evid. 701 permits a lay witness to testify to an opinion (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Accordingly, a president of a company, such as Cook, has personal knowledge of his business ... sufficient to make ... [him] eligible under Rule 701 to testify as to how lost profits could be calculated. In re Merritt Logan, Inc., 901 F.2d 349, 360 (3rd Cir.1990). A company president certainly is capable of projecting lost profits where the projection is based on evidence of decreased sales. See Teen-Ed, 620 F.2d at 403-04. It is noteworthy that appellants cross-examined Cook extensively and that the jury did not award the total loss of profits testified to by Cook. The same lost profits were found with respect to the RICO claim. 64 Duplicative out-of-pocket loss damages were awarded on the RICO, General Business Law and defamation claims. Such damages properly were awarded on the basis of specific travel expense reimbursement statements received in evidence along with the testimony of Cook. The award of duplicative damages for loss of good will also was supported by the evidence.