Firth v. State of New York
98 N.Y.2d 365, 775 N.E.2d 463, 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The single publication rule applies to defamatory statements posted on the internet, meaning the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the material is first posted. A subsequent modification to the website involving unrelated content does not constitute a republication that would reset the limitations period.
Facts:
- George Firth was formerly employed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as Director of the Division of Law Enforcement.
- On December 16, 1996, the Office of the State Inspector General issued a report that was critical of Firth's managerial style and weapons procurement.
- On the same day, December 16, 1996, the State Education Department posted the full text of the report on its Government Information Locator Service Internet site.
- After the initial posting, the text of the report concerning Firth was never modified.
- In May 1997, the State added an unrelated report concerning the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to the same website.
- On March 18, 1998, more than one year after the report was first posted online, Firth filed a defamation claim against the State.
Procedural Posture:
- George Firth filed a claim against the State of New York in the Court of Claims, alleging defamation.
- The State moved to dismiss the claim on the grounds that it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
- The Court of Claims, a court of first instance, granted summary judgment to the State, dismissing the claim as time-barred.
- Firth, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- A majority of the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, with two justices dissenting.
- Firth, as appellant, appealed as of right to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the single publication rule apply to allegedly defamatory statements posted on the internet, and if so, does a subsequent modification to an unrelated portion of the website constitute a republication that resets the statute of limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Levine, J.
Yes, the single publication rule applies to defamatory statements on the internet, and no, adding unrelated content to the website does not constitute a republication. The policies underlying the single publication rule—preventing stale claims, endless litigation, and harassment of defendants—are even more critical in the context of the internet, with its vast and instantaneous worldwide reach. Applying a multiple publication rule where each 'hit' or viewing constitutes a new publication would create a serious inhibitory effect on the open dissemination of information online. Therefore, the statute of limitations for an internet defamation claim begins to run on the date the material is first posted. Republication requires a separate, aggregate publication intended to reach a new audience, such as a new edition of a book. The mere addition of unrelated information to a website is not reasonably inferable as an attempt to communicate the earlier defamatory information to a new audience and thus does not reset the statute of limitations.
Analysis:
This decision is significant as a foundational case extending traditional defamation law to the digital age. By applying the single publication rule to the internet, the court provided crucial protection to online publishers from perpetual liability, thereby fostering the free exchange of information online. The ruling established a clear and predictable start date for the statute of limitations—the date of initial posting. Furthermore, its narrow definition of 'republication' in the online context prevents the limitations period from being reset by routine website updates, a decision that has become a cornerstone of internet jurisprudence.
Unlock the full brief for Firth v. State of New York