Davis v. Boeheim
22 N.E.3d 999 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement of opinion can be actionable as defamation if it is a 'mixed opinion,' meaning it implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to the audience. The context in which a statement is made, including the speaker's authority and access to information, is a key factor in determining whether a reasonable reader would perceive it as conveying fact rather than non-actionable pure opinion.
Facts:
- Robert Davis and Michael Lang alleged that Bernie Fine, an associate head basketball coach at Syracuse University, sexually molested them for years, starting when they were children serving as team 'ball boys'.
- Davis attempted to report the abuse to the Syracuse Police Department in 2002 and to Syracuse University in 2005, but both entities concluded his claims were unfounded or could not be pursued.
- In 2011, following media reports on the Penn State scandal, ESPN published a story detailing Davis's and Lang's allegations against Fine.
- The day the ESPN story broke, Syracuse University's head basketball coach, James Boeheim, who was Fine's longtime friend and colleague, made several public statements to the media.
- In these statements, Boeheim asserted that Davis and Lang were lying, that their allegations were financially motivated, and that Davis had made similar false claims for money in the past.
- Boeheim stated, 'I know [Davis is] lying about me seeing him in his hotel room. That’s a lie. If he’s going to tell one lie, I’m sure there’s a few more of them.'
- Boeheim also publicly referenced the University's internal investigation, suggesting he had access to information supporting his claims before the University itself released a statement.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Davis and Michael Lang sued Syracuse University and James Boeheim for defamation in New York Supreme Court, the state's trial court of first instance.
- The defendants filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, arguing the challenged statements were non-actionable opinion.
- The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division, in a 3-2 split decision, affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) were granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a university coach's public statements—that individuals accusing his colleague of sexual abuse are lying for financial gain—constitute non-actionable 'pure opinion' as a matter of law, therefore requiring dismissal of a defamation claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Rivera, J.
No. The coach's statements are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation as actionable 'mixed opinion' because a reasonable reader could conclude they imply a basis in undisclosed facts known to the speaker. The court's reasoning rests on a three-factor analysis. First, the language used (e.g., 'lying,' 'trying to get money') has a precise, readily understood meaning. Second, the statements are capable of being proven true or false. Third, and most importantly, the context suggests the statements are factual. Boeheim, as a respected head coach with a long relationship with the accused and the University, spoke with an air of authority. By referencing the University's investigation and his personal knowledge of the parties, he created the impression that his 'opinion' was based on undisclosed facts, making it a 'mixed opinion' that is not protected from a defamation claim at the pleading stage.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms New York's liberal pleading standard for defamation and clarifies the context-sensitive nature of the fact-opinion distinction. It demonstrates that a speaker's status, authority, and perceived access to non-public information can transform what might otherwise be considered opinion into actionable 'mixed opinion.' The ruling makes it more difficult for defendants in positions of authority to have defamation claims dismissed at the pre-answer stage by simply couching factual assertions in opinionated language (e.g., 'I believe he is lying'). The case serves as a strong precedent for plaintiffs arguing that statements made by public figures imply a basis in undisclosed defamatory facts.
Unlock the full brief for Davis v. Boeheim