Yonaty v. Mincolla
945 N.Y.2d 774, 97 A.D.3d 141 (2012)
Rule of Law:
Statements falsely describing a person as lesbian, gay, or bisexual do not constitute slander per se in New York, as such a classification is inconsistent with current public policy that protects and respects the civil rights of LGBTQ+ individuals.
Facts:
- A nonparty informed the defendant that the plaintiff was gay or bisexual.
- The defendant relayed this information to a close family friend of the plaintiff's long-time girlfriend.
- The defendant intended for the plaintiff's girlfriend to be told of the statements.
- The plaintiff maintains that the defendant's actions caused the deterioration and ultimate termination of his relationship with his girlfriend.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant, alleging slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort.
- The defendant initiated a third-party action against a third-party defendant, seeking indemnification for the republication of the statements.
- The Supreme Court (trial court) denied the third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint.
- The Supreme Court (trial court) partially granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and prima facie tort.
- The Supreme Court (trial court) denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s slander claim, feeling bound by previous appellate court decisions that classified false imputations of homosexuality as defamation per se.
- Both the plaintiff and the defendant cross-appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of 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 a statement falsely describing a person as lesbian, gay, or bisexual constitute slander per se in New York, thereby allowing a plaintiff to sue without needing to prove specific financial damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Mercure, J.P.
No, a statement falsely describing a person as lesbian, gay, or bisexual does not constitute slander per se in New York. The court overrules prior appellate case law to the contrary, finding that classifying such statements as defamatory per se is based on the flawed premise that it is shameful and disgraceful to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual. This premise is inconsistent with current public policy and evolving social attitudes. The court references the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which held that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct violate the Due Process Clause and that homosexual persons are entitled to respect for their private lives. In New York, the Human Rights Law has prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation since 2002, and the Marriage Equality Act was passed in 2011, granting same-sex couples the right to marry. These statutory and judicial developments demonstrate a clear public policy of acceptance and protection for LGBTQ+ individuals. Therefore, statements imputing homosexuality cannot be equated with accusations of serious criminal conduct or loathsome disease, which are traditional categories of slander per se. Since the plaintiff failed to allege special damages (pecuniary loss), his slander claim must be dismissed.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant shift in defamation law in New York, bringing it into alignment with modern understandings of civil rights and public policy regarding sexual orientation. By removing false imputations of homosexuality from the category of slander per se, the court acknowledges the legal and social advancements for LGBTQ+ individuals. This decision prevents the law from implicitly endorsing the stigmatization of homosexuality, reinforcing that being LGBTQ+ is not inherently shameful or disgraceful. Future defamation cases will likely require plaintiffs to demonstrate actual harm (special damages) from such statements, unless they fall into the remaining four established per se categories, marking a higher bar for recovery.
