Gross v. New York Times Co.
623 N.E.2d 1163, 82 N.Y.2d 146, 603 N.Y.S.2d 813 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement that is couched as an opinion can be actionable for defamation if it implies the existence of undisclosed, provably false factual assertions. In determining whether a statement is fact or opinion, courts must analyze whether the language has a precise meaning, whether it is capable of being proven true or false, and whether the broader context signals to a reasonable reader that it is an assertion of fact.
Facts:
- Between January 1985 and February 1986, The New York Times published a series of investigative reports about Dr. Gross, the Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York.
- The articles charged that Gross had produced a series of misleading or inaccurate autopsy reports on individuals who died in police custody.
- The reports claimed Gross used his authority to protect police officers from suspicion, alleging he altered the findings of other pathologists and changed a cause of death to absolve police.
- One article quoted a pathologist stating that Gross had "bend over backwards to help the police" and that his actions were either "unbelievably incompetent" or a deliberate effort to protect police.
- The series asserted that Gross's conduct included engaging in "cover-ups" and was "highly suspicious" and "possibly illegal."
- As a result of the articles, four separate criminal investigations were conducted into Gross's professional conduct.
- All four investigations concluded there was no evidence of professional misconduct or criminal wrongdoing by Gross.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Gross (plaintiff) filed a libel action against The New York Times and its staff (defendants) in a New York trial court.
- Before discovery, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, arguing the articles contained non-actionable expressions of opinion.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint.
- Gross (appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding the articles reported 'accusatory opinions' accompanied by the facts upon which they were based.
- The Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court, granted Gross (appellant) leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are allegedly defamatory statements in newspaper articles, which accuse a public official of misconduct and are presented alongside purported factual support, actionable as statements of fact even if they are framed as conclusions or opinions?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Titone
Yes. Allegedly defamatory statements accusing a public official of misconduct are actionable as statements of fact, even if framed as opinions, if a reasonable reader would understand them as conveying provable facts. The dispositive inquiry is whether a reasonable reader could have concluded that the articles were conveying facts about the plaintiff. To make this determination, a court must examine: (1) whether the specific language has a precise, readily understood meaning; (2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and (3) whether the full context of the communication signals to readers that it is opinion, not fact. Here, accusations of "cover-ups," creating "misleading" reports, and engaging in "possibly illegal" conduct are assertions that a reasonable reader would understand as provable facts, not mere conjecture. The context of a lengthy, documented investigative series in the news section, rather than an editorial page, encourages the reader to believe the assertions are factual. Therefore, the complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, as it contains actionable assertions of fact.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms New York's context-sensitive approach to the fact-opinion distinction in defamation law, clarifying that courts must perform a holistic analysis rather than affording a blanket privilege to any statement framed as an opinion. The ruling establishes that media defendants cannot shield themselves from liability by couching factual accusations in conclusory or hypothetical language. By emphasizing the importance of the publication's context—such as appearing in the news section versus the editorial page—the case makes it more difficult for defendants to secure pre-discovery dismissals in libel suits involving investigative journalism, thereby strengthening the position of plaintiffs who allege their reputations were damaged by articles that imply a basis in fact.
