Opinion ID: 176780
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Defamation Causes of Action

Text: The District Court determined that two of the allegedly defamatory statementsthe statement on the Inside Cable website that DiFolco had resigned from MSNBC in the middle of her contract and the statement on the News-Blues website that Claudia DiFolco has quit MSNBC in the middle of her contract[we]re true . . . and thus not actionable. DiFolco, 2007 WL 959085, at . This determination was based on the court's conclusion that DiFolco repudiated her contract as a matter of law, a conclusion that we have rejected as premature. Accordingly, we are constrained to reinstate the defamation claims, which are pleaded properly to state claims in any event. The complaint alleges that the statements were untrue and defamatory and were published with malice and with knowledge of their falsity and/or with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. DiFolco further alleges that these statements were willful and intended to seriously harm [her] . . . career. According to the complaint, the defamatory statements impugn Ms. DiFolco's honesty, trustworthiness, dependability, and professional fitness and abilities by falsely charging her with conduct that would tend to injure her in her trade or business. These and other allegations in the complaint are adequate to support a claim based on a writing which tends to disparage a person in the way of [her] office, profession, or trade. Nichols v. Item Publishers, Inc., 309 N.Y. 596, 132 N.E.2d 860, 862 (1956). The complaint describes statements that, if true, would tend to prove [DiFolco] unfit to continue [her] calling. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The complaint sets forth the necessary elements to make out a claim for defamation in New York, including the element of malice. See generally Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344, 349-50 (1992). As to the third alleged defamatory statementthe TVSpy website statement that DiFolco relied on cleavage and makeup to advance her career, ignored directions, refused alternate takes, pouted, and was not a team playerthe District Court also was premature in its dismissal. The District Court determined that a reasonable reader would conclude from both the broader context and the immediate context that the third allegedly defamatory statement consists of opinions, not facts. DiFolco, 2007 WL 959085, at . However, `[o]pinions based on false facts are actionable . . . against a defendant who had knowledge of the falsity or probable falsity of the underlying facts.' Davis v. Ross, 754 F.2d 80, 86 (2d Cir. 1985) (quoting Hotchner v. Castillo-Puche, 551 F.2d 910, 913 (2d Cir.1977)). Such knowledge of falsity is properly alleged here, and DiFolco is entitled to show that the negative characterization presented on the website is coupled with a clear but false implication that the author is privy to facts about the person that are unknown to the general reader. Davis 754 F.2d at 85-86.