King v Hludzenski Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary...

7/30/2019 King v Hludzenski Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (1)

1/19

SUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEWYORKCOUNTYOFJEFFERSON

GARYKING,ARVEI'HITE,DONNIEMASON,ARTYMASON,PAULMASON,ARLENEBURTON,DARRELBURTONandFRANKGIAQUINTO

-against-KATHRYNA.HLUDZENS~IT2l[ClE-IARDC.6'ILEY,SR.ndJOHNDOES,-10

Plaintiffs, IndexNo.012-1654

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS'VIEM012ANDUMOFLAWINOPPOSITIONTODEFENI)A1~7[''SMOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMEN7C


2/19

T. PRELIMINARYSTATEMENTDefendant Kathryn Hludzenski("Defendant") seeks SummaryJudgment prior to

virtually any discovery being conducted in thiscase. After receivingthe benefit oflaintiffs'responses and cor responding supplemental responses to Defendant's discovery requests,Defendantlargelyignored Plaintiffs' owndiscoveryrequests. Defendant's blatantdisregard toPlaintiffs'relevantdiscoveryrequestsoccurred after PlaintiffsgraciouslyallowedDefendantanextensionto respond. As such,Defendant reliessolely onaself-serving affidavitthatat bestdoesnot hing morethan createissues offactwhichcannotbedecidedon summaryjudgmentand certainlynotat thisstage of helitigation beforethe Plaintiffs havehad theopportunitytoconduct discovery.Summary udgmentmotionspriortothe closeofiscovery,muchLess beforeany discoveryhas takenplace,arecontrarytotheCPLRandhighly disfavored.Thiscaseis noexception.

Further, the particularfacts in this case,knownto Plaintiffs at thistime,precludeDefendant's requestforsummary judgment. This is notacas ewherePlaintiffsarerelying onstatements made by Defendant that are opinions, hyperbol e, name-calling, or rhetoric.Defendant admittedlymadestatementsontheInternet that Plaintiffshave engaged in conduct,that if give nitsordinarymeaning, ccuses Plaintiffs ofoter fraud,subjects Plaintiffstoridicule,and calls their personal and professional reputations into question. Thesestatements arecertainlynotaffordedthe protection contemplated bytheFirstAmendmentorthelawsoftheStateofNewYork.Forthesereasons,the motionshould bedenied.

Finally, despiteDefendant's attempt to mischaracterizethe subject matter ofhislawsuitin athinlyveiled attemptto recoverherattorneys'fees,thesimple factisthatPlaintiffs were part~ Plaintiffs will only respond toDefendant KathrynHludzenski's argumentsin supportof her MotionforSummaryJudgmentasPlaintiffsand Defendant RichardWiley havereachedan agreementin principle tosettle theirrespective claims.


3/19

ofagrouptrying to protect the votingrightsofyear-round residents ofCape Vincent. Plaintiffssimplysoughttohavearesolution passedthat protectedtheir substantialand continuingdailyinterests intheoperationofCapeVincentand advancement of he Town'sinterests. Nowhereinthepetition or resolution citedbyDefendant does theissueofwind,windfarms,or BritishPetroleum("BP")ppear. PlaintiffsarenotactingonbehalfofBP and are certainlynotactinginfurtheranceof anywindcontracts they have withBP. After standing idlybyandwatching theirre putationsbetorn apart intheCapeVincentcommunity over a periodof everalyears,Plaintiffshadnochoice but totakethenext stepandfile thislawsuit in order to stop Defendant's unlawfulpublication.

Defendant's Motion for SummaryJudgmentshould bedeniedbecauselimited discoveryhasoccurred andthe st ate ments in que sti on are unquestionably false statements offact.Plaintiffs, therefore, ought o be allowedtopursue their claims.II. STATEMENT OFFACTS

A.CitizensForFairgovernment WorksToStopVoter ~+raud.Defendant's self-serving attemptto recasttheissuesinthis case fails. Plaintiffs are

members and/or supporters ofalocal organizationcalledCitizens forFai rGovernment("CFG")(Affidavi tof Gary King("KingAff."}at~ .)CFG'sobjectiveisto ensurethat the rights of hecitizensofCapeVincent are protected.(Id.at .)Tohat end,CFGhasundertaken numerousmeasures to safeguard th ecivil liberties andinterestsof year-round residents ofthe Townof

CapeVincent,as it istheseveryresidents that realize thedailyimpact oftheTown'selectedofficials,adoptedlaws and ordinances,and the administrationofocalgovernment.

CFGdoesnot limitthe issues towhich ttakesaninterest. However,heprimary concernofCFGisto curtailsuspected voterfraudinthe TownofCapeVincent.(Id.at .} Issues

3


4/19

regardingvoterregistrationhavebeenaparticularconcernbecause seasonal residentshaveattemptedtochange wheretheyareregisteredtovoteinaneffortto influence local elections.Theseefforts allowseasonalresidentstorealizean immediatebenefitand stripyeax-roundCapeVincentresidents of heirownmunicipal privileges.

Forinstance,CFGhasasignificant interestin the NewYorkSchoolTax ReliefProgram("STAR").STAR provides homeownerspartialexemptions fromschoolpropertytaxes. (KingAff. at 6.} Inorder toqualify foranexemption, an individualmust owna home and tmust bethatperson's primaryresidence.(Id.}A ocalassessordeterminesprimaryresidenceby,amongotherthings,votingregistrationandthe length oftimespenteach yearontheproperty.(Id.at~(17.) CFGwasconcernedthat part-timeresidents inCape Vincentwere registeringto vote in theTownin an effort to qualify theirseasonalproperty for partialexemptionunderthe STARprogram.(Id.at~( 18.) Clearl y,obtainingthispartialexemptionwoulddivestthe localschooldistrict of neededfunds, therebycausinganegat iveimpact onyeax-round residents withsubstantialinterests inthe schooldistrictand causingawindfallforthe seasonal resident.(Id.)

CFG snottheonlyentitythatrecognizedtheimpact ofeasonal residentschangingtheirvoterregistration onrealpropertyt~exemptions. Inor aroundOctober2011, anunsignednoticewassenttovariouscity assessors notifyingeachthataresidentofheircityhadrecentlyregisteredtovote inCapeVincent.2 (Id.at ~19,Exhibit D.) Theassessorforthe CityofCanandaigua, NewYork,MarkBrown,respondedto thenoticeby contactingtheresidentinquestion andinquiringwherethatresident consideredhisprimaryresidencetobe. (KingAff. at~21,Exhibit E.) Theresident, after stating that all ofhis vehicles wereregistered inCanandaiguaandthat he filed incometaxes in Canandaigua,admittedthatheconsideredz Theunsignednotice purportedto befromHaroldWiley andGaryKing.However, Mr.Kingdidnot draftth enotice, didnotsign thenotice, and didnotauthorizeissuance of henoticein any instance orat any time.(KingAff . at 0.)


5/19

Canandaigua tobe his primary residence. Ne ver theless ,the resident still acknowledgedthat heregisteredtovotein CapeVincent.Mr.Brown,n response tothis confession ,"sug;estedth atlae Iaadjust admitted to voterfraudas IZe was not aCapeVincentre si dent or thirtydays priorto the election." (Id.) Clearly, Plaintiffs'su spicio ns that voter fraudwaspervas ive in CapeVincent werenotunfounded.

B.TheResolutionIs SupJportedByCape VincentResidents.Inoraround the summerof 201, Plaintiffs, aswell asseveralother pe ople, gather ed in

supportofcertainpublicofficials. (Id. at~( 8.) At thisgathering, citizens began voic ing theirconcernsoverwhatmany be lie ved to be illegalvotingpractices in the Town of CapeVincent.(Id.)Inresponse to these concerns,several membersofhegatheringfor mul ate d ameasuretodrasticallyreduceor eliminate theseperceived illegal voting practices. (Id.at ~ 9.) Theproposedmeasurewould require anyvoter in aTown election topresentaNewYorkStateIDwith a CapeVincentaddress. (Id.) The measureformedthe basisfor apetition thatwascirculated andultimately resultedinthe August11,011 Re so lu tion(t he "Resolu tio n").(Id. at~(9,ExhibitA.)Notably,acommissionerof heJefferson County Board oflectionswaspresentat the gathe ring at which the measure wasdiscussed. (Id. at10.) Although hewasunquestionablyaware of he basic tenetsofhe proposed measure, the commissioner expr essedli ttl econcern overitand, nfact,stated thattheonly possible negative outcomewasthat itcouldbe chal leng ed incourt. (Id.)

Thereafte r,inor aroundearlyAugust 2011,he petition was pre paredandcirculatedinthe TownofCape Vincent. Thepetition, si gnedbyover two hundred (200} citizens,requestedthat theTownBoard takeactionto resolveillegal andunethical voting methods bei ng carriedoutin Townelections. (Id.at~ 11,ExhibitB.) Specifically, the signatories ofthepetition were

5


6/19

concerned thatindividuals that ownedpropertyin theTown, butrarelylived onthatverypro per ty, were changingtheirvoter registrationinaneffort tovote in the Town,aterially affecttheoutcomeofelections, andsubstantiallydamagePlaintiffs' and otheryear-round citizens'interests. (Id.) Thepetition, therefore, requested that the TownBoaxdimplement a procedurewherebyvoterswouldbe requiredto presentaNew YorkState driver'slicensewith aCapeVincent address in order to vote . (Id.at 12.} The petitionwas pr esente dtotheTownBoardandsubsequentlyadoptedas theResolution.(Id.at~13.)

Twomembersofthe TownBoard didnotbelievetheResolutiontobe lawful. Assuch,the TownBoard solicited aletter fromthe TownAttorneyfor an opinionregardingtheResolution. (Id. at ~ 14.) The TownAttorney merelyopzned That, in his view,"fheresolution...is ineffective." (Id.at~( 15, ExhibitC.) TheTownAttorneyrecognizedthat aprospective voters mustbearesident ofheurisdictionforthirtydaysandre sidencyis largelyaquestion of ntent.(Id.) Plaintiffssharedtheseconcerns.Indeed,laintiffs hadalready rece ivedconfizmationthatthese very practices had been occurring in an effort toinfluencelocal elections.(Id.at 1, xhibitE).Plaintiffs merelywantedtodosomething tolimit illegal and/or unethicalvotinginCapeVincent.

Rather than delve furtherintotheissueandinvolve the Boardof Elections, theTownBoardhastily reconvened andrescinded the resolution.

C.DefendantWagesCrusadeTo Destroy Plaintiffs'I~epratations.

Defendant,withoutpossessing knowledgeofmany of thesefacts,launcheda campaignonthe websitehttp://pandorasboxofrocks.blo~s~ot.com todestro ythepersonaland professionalreputations ofPlaintiffs. Defendant not only calledth emoral characterofmanyPlaintiffsintoquestion, butalsoaccusedPlaintiffs of voter fraud themselvesand intimidating andexacting

D


7/19

retributionon prospectivevotersto accomplishtheirgoals.Readers ofhesepublications,givingthepoststheirordinary meaning,nodoubt loweredtheiropinionof laintiffs and were leftwiththe impressionthatPlaintiffs wereusingunlawful andforceful tacticsto accomplishtheirownvoterfraud.Inorder to protectthemselvesandtheirfamilies,Plaintiffsfiled theinstantlawsuittoputanend toDefendant'sunlawful publicationof alse anddisparaging statements and try torepairtheirreputations.

D. DefendantYgnoreslPlaintiffs'Discovery Requests.OnoraboutAugust20, 2012,DefendantservedPlaintiffs with,amongotherthings,

Defendant'sFirstSetofnterrogatories andFirstSetofRequestsfor Production("Defendant'sDiscoveryRequests"). (Affidavit of JamesW.Kelly,II.("Kelly Aff.") at ~( 3.) Plaintiffsrespondedto Defendant's DiscoveryRequestsonSeptember10,2012.(Id.at.)Thereafter,Defendantcomplained ofdeficienciesinPlaintiffs'responses.(Id.at~5.} Plaintiffsdid notbelieve thattheirresponsescontainedany suchdeficiencies, however,naneffortto placateandaccommodateDefendant,agreed tosupplement theirresponsesonOctober 29,412.(Id.at .}

Shortlythereafter,Plaintiffsserved RequestsforAdmission,nterrogatoriesandRequestsforProductiononDefendant. (Id. at~[ 7, ExhibitA.) OnNovember27,2013Defendantrequested anextensionof timetorespond to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and RequestsforProductionandstrategicallyanswered Plaintiffs'Requestsfor Admission. (Id.at,xhibitB.)Plaintiffs graciouslygrantedDefendant'srequest. (Id.at9,Exhibit C.) Thethree-weekextensioncameandpassedwith noresponsefromDefendant. (Id.at~(10.)Plaintiffs'counselfollowedup byemailandformalletter in compliancewiththeCPLRin order to avoidoverburdeningthisCourtbyseekingjudicialintervention. (Id.at~( '~ 9-10, xhibits C,.)To

7


8/19

date,Plaintiffs have still not received responses to their Interrogatories or RequestsfoxProduction.(Id. at ~10 .)

Now,fterrealizingthe benefit of Plaintiffsdiscov eryresponsesand evenciting th oseresponsesin he rMotion,Defendant asks that this Courtto enter summary judgmentin herfavorwithout affording Plaintiffsthesame discoveryar opportunity. Indeed,DefendantblatantlyignoredPlaintiffs'requeststoproducedocumentsand informat ion in su ppo rt ofer defenses inthis case which shedirectly relieson andcites in herMotion.Plaintiffshavebeen severelyprejud ice dby not havingtheopp ortunity to disc ove rthisinformation or conductanyadditionaldiscoveryduetoDefendant'sfailures.

In any even t, thein formationknown to Plaintiffs at this timeforecloses thisCourt'sability toentersummaryjudgment inDefendant'sfavorbecausethestatement s areclearlycapable of a defamatorymeaning totheaveragereader. For all of these reasons, Defendant'sMotionmust be de nied.ICI. LAWANDA~2GUl0~IENT

A. SummaryJudggnentIs Premature.Virtuallynodi sc overy has been completedinthiscasedue, n largepart,to Defendant's

lac kof candorinrespondingtoPlaintiffs'initia l disco ve ry requests. Indeed,notasinglede po sition hasbeen taken nor asingledocument been produced by Defendant. Asmore fullyexplainedbelow,laintiffsareentitled tothis discoveryinsupportof heircl aim sand,becauselimited discovery hasoccurred, Defendant's Motionmustbe denie d.

1. Asageneral rule, summaryjudgmentpriortotheclose ofdiscoveryisdisfavored.Thdrastic remedyofsummaryjudgment should not begranted if thereis anydoubtas

to theexistenceofanunresolved issueof act.SeeRamsanzmyv. CityofNewYof-k,216A.D.2d


9/19

234,236 1stDept. 199 5). Moreover,wherefacts essentialtojustifyopposition toasummaryjudgmentmotionmayexist butare unknownto thepartyopposing themotionastheyare withintheexclusiveknowledge ofthepartyseekingsummaryjudgment,acourtshoulddenythesummary judgmentmotion aspremature. SeeCPLR32120;mithv. NewYork,133A.D.2d818,819-820(2dDept. 1987) In particular,aparty opposingsumnnary judgmentshouldbepermittedto"complete pretrialdiscovery withrespect toall defen dant s"before asummaryjudgmentdetermination canbe made.Smithv.NewYork, 133A.D.2dat 820; seealso Bond.DeMasco, 84A.D.3d1292, 1293 (2dDept. 2011);Ortizv. J.PJackCorp., 286A.D.2d671(2dDept. 2Q01)holdingthat"rec ordwasnotripefor reachinga summary determination...incediscovery remainsoutstanding.")

Plaintiffs havebeendeprivedof anyability touncoverfactsessentialtojustifytheiropposition to Defendant's Motion. Defendant's completely ignored almost all ofPlaintiffs'discoveryrequests and,nstead, hurriedly filed thisMotion in an efforttosubstantiallyprejudicePlaintiffs. Byfailing to engagein pretrial discovery,Defendanthassquarely eliminatedPlazntiffs'abilitytouncover factsrelating tothiscase. Indeed,facts related totheresolution,petition,community opinion ofPlaintiffs,determination of residencybyothermunicipalities,communicationsbyDefendantandotherthirdpartiesregarding Plaintiffs, and Defendant'sstateofmind andintentare essential tothe validation oflai msanddefenses inthiscase.

Def endant'sownMotion expressly provesthis position. Defendantrelies onthepurported factthatGary King sentanoticeto variouscityassessorsinsupportof herpositionthatherstatementsare true. Inreality, andifDefendanthadtaken thetimetoinvestigatethismatter through pretrial discovery,she wouldhavediscoveredthat GaryKingdid not,infact,

9


10/19

sendthe notice inquestion andwasnotawarethathisnamewasincludedonthe notice.(KingAff.at~19-20,Exhibit D.}

Allofthe categoriesofevidenceidentified abovewould directlysupportPlaintiffs'arguments in oppositiontoDefendant'sMotion.Further,documentsandinformation regardingthebasisforDefendant's statements,suchas knowledgeregardingherallegations thatPlaintiffsintimidatedregistered voters,areexclusivelywithinDefendant'spossession andcontrol. Shecannot, herefore, avoid her discoveryallegationsbyprematurelymovingforslunmaryjudgmentwhere evidence todefeattheMotionmay,ndcertainlydoes,xist.SeeWestchesterMed.Ctr, vNewYorkCent. Mut.Fi~~e Ins. Co.,915N.Y.S.2d912Sup.Ct., NassauCounty,2010)"Forpurposesofthe] motion,tissufficientfor thecourttofind thatevidencesufficientto defeatthemotionmayxist,andthatdisclosureshouldbepermitted.")

Defendant'sMotion must,herefore,bedenied.2.Inadefamationcasewheremalicemust beshown,summaryjudgmentpriortothedeposition ofthedefendantisinappropriate.

Inadefamation actionwherediscovery,such asadeposition,isneededtoproduceevidenceof maliceonthepartofthepartyseekingsummaryjudgment, agrantofsummaryjudgmentis inappropriate. Kaminesterv. Weintraub, 131A.D.2d 440, 441(2nd Dept.1987).Indeed,the SupremeCourthas heldandthe NewYorkCourtofAppealshasrecognizedthata defamation case involving proof ofmalice"doesnot readily lend itself to summaxydisposition." SeeRinaldi v. VikingPenguin,Inc., 52 N.Y.2d 422,438 (1981)(quotingHutchinson v.Proxmire,443 U.S.111,120,n.91979)).

Defendantarguesthat at leasttwoPlaintiffs,MaryandDonnieMason,re publicfiguresandthatthey, herefore,must provemaliceinordertosustaineachof heirclaims.However,byfilingamotionat this stage ofthelitigation,Defendanthasdeliberatelyprecluded plaintiffs

10


11/19

Marty and Donnie Masonfrombeingab le to provethat elementbecause theyhave notbeenableto depose Defendant. Indeed,Defendant wants tohave her cake andeat ittoo. Shecannotavoidher discoveryobligations and prejudicePlaintiffs, and then claim thatPlaintiffs cannotmeet heirburden. Onthecontr ary,courtshaveroutinely heldthat wherediscoveryisneededtoproveevidence of malice,summary judgment isinappropriate. See e.g., Kaminester, 131A.D.2d at441; Rinaldi,52N.Y.2d at 438. Here,there can beno questionthat Plaintiffsareentitledtoconduct Defendant'sdeposition inorderto establish herrequisite intent.

Defendant'sintent is equally asimportant to the remaining Plaintiffs' claims. AllPlaintiffs have allegedthatbecause the statementsinqu estion weremadewith actual malice,they are entitled topunitive damages. Again, Defendant cannotsimply avoiddiscovery andswiftly moveforsummaryjudgmentin aneffort to escapepotential significant liability. Here,Plaintiffsar eentitled todepose Defendanttoprove thatthe statements thatshemaderegardingPlaintiffs were made with actualmaliceandthatshe, herefore, is subj ect topunitivedamages.

Defendant's Motionmust,herefore, be denied.3. Defendant'sself-servin g affidavit cannot be the basis ofa grantofsa~mmaryjudgmentn herfavor.

A elf-serving affidavitoffe red bythe party seekingsuzn zna ryjudgmentis insufficienttoestablishtheparty's en titlement tosummaryjudgment. Deephaven DistressedOpportunitiesTradings,Lt d. v 3VCapital MasterFundLtd.,100 A.D.3d505,507(lst Dept. 2012). Here,Defendantoffersnothing more thanaself-serving affidavit insupport of herMotionwithaccompanyingdocumentsthat, in someinstances ,areundeniablynotwhat Defendant claimstheyare. Forinstance,andas set forth above,thenoticepurportedly sentbyGary Kingtovarious city assessors was not,infact, sentbyGaryKing. Astated,GaryKingdidnotsend thenot ice andwasnot awarethat hisnamewasincluded on thenotice.(KingAff.at19-20.)

11


12/19

Plaintiffsarecertainlyentitledto conductdisco verytodiscoverwhyDefendantbelievedGaryKingse nt notice, theactions taken byDefendant toconfirmthatGaryKingsentthenotice,whetherDefendant disregardedinf ormation suggestingthatGaryKingdidnotsendthenotice,andall otherinformationknownto Defendantregarding th e notice.

It ispreciselybecause ofhese typesofci rc umstancesthatcourtshave heldthataself-serving affidavit is insufficient to establish aparty's entitlement to summaryjudgment.Moreover,courtswidelyrecognizethatunderCPLR3212(f ~, wherefactsessentialtojustifyopposi ti on to amotionfor summaryjudgmentar eexclusivelywit hinthe knowledge and controlof the movant,summaxyjudgmentmaybe denied. Thisis especially sowhere theopposingpartyhasnothad areasonableoppor tu nity fordisclosurepriortothemaking ofhemotion.SeeAfi~odianzLtd. vElgoDiamondsnt l., Inc., No.113483/08,2011 N.Y.Misc.LEXIS258,*6-7(Sup.Ct., NewYorkCounty, Feb.3,2011}citingOverseasRelianceTours&TravelServ.vSameCo., 17A.D.2d578, 5801st Dept.1963}}. Given Defendant's notablemisunderstandingregarding at leastonedocumentrelied oninsupportofher Motion, tis evenmoreimperativethat Plaintiffshavetheopportunityto questi on herregarding therepresentations madeinrelationto the otherdocumentsattachedto he r self-servingaffidavit.

Accordingly,Defendant'sMotionmustbedenied.B. Theta#ements PublishedByDefendantAre Clearly Defamatory.

1. Defendant'sattackonMartyandDonnie Mason'spersonal characterandvaluesconstitutesdefamation.I?efen~dant's publicationofsta te me nt scallingintoqu esti onthe personalcharacter and

reputation oflaintiffsMarty andDonnieMasan based onadecisionmadeintheircapacity asapublic officialhas nobasisinfact.Indeed,bystatingthateachaxe"Menof ubstandard ValuesandCharacter," Defendantimplies that shehas factstosupport thatthese znenaresomehow

12


13/19

immoral,unchaste,orsimplybad people. This,ofcourse,is notthecase andis furtherexemplifiedbyDefendant'sownarguments.

Defendant sabsolutelycorrectwhensheassertsthat plaintiffsManyand DonnieMasonare required toproveactualmaliceinorder tomaintaintheircausesofactionfordefamation.SeeFreemanv.Johnston,84N.Y.2d52,561994).However,hileDefendantseekstoimposethe obligation ofmeeting this standard onplaintiffs MartyandDonnieMason,shehasdeliberately barredthemfrombeingabletodoso. Withoutbeingable to properlydeposeDefendant,andafterDefendantrefusedtoanswerasingleInterrogatory or produce asingledocument,laintiffs MartyandDonnie Masonareonlylef twithoneconclusionthat Defendantactedwithactual malice.

Themeaningthat anordinaryandprudentperson placesonatermcanbeeasilyidentifiable in the dictionary. Merriam Webster's dictionary defines character as"moralexcellenceandfirmness."Similarly, aperson's valuesaredefined as"something,saprincipleorquality,intrinsicallyvaluableor desirable." Defendant'sspeechgoesmuchfurther thanjustcriticizingthedecisions ofwoindividuals intheirpubliccapacity.Tobesure,Defendantstatesthateachhassubstandard characterandvalues basedonadecision,forwhichthere waswidepublicdebateanddefinitelyuncertainty,nnade ataTownBoardmeeting.Defendant admittedlypublishedthisstatementbasedonthisdecisionalone. Seegenerally,Defendant'sMotion atp.6-7. However,themessageconveyed byDefendant'spublicationhasfar greater reach. Bypublishingthisrecklessstatement,Defendantimpliesthat shehasfactstosupportafinding thatMartyandDonnieMasonlackmoralfiber.SeeLenzHardwafeInc.v. Wilson,94 N.Y.2d913,(2000)finding thatit is for thecourt todetermin ewhether thestatementsmadearereasonablycapableofonveyingadefamatory import).

13


14/19

NewYork courtshavedrawnacleardistinction withthistypeofstatementpublishedaboutapublicofficial.Forinstance,inLodenvNied,89 A.D.3d11973dDept.2011)hecourtrecognizedthatevenstatementsmadebyaprivatecitizenofandconcerningapublicofficialinthecontext ofanethicscomplaint,thestatementswere actionable. InLoder,defendantaccusedPlaintiffof, amongother things,"repeatedly demon strating anappearanceofimpropriety,""conflict(s)-of-interest and position as Planning Board Chair mayhave influenced thedeterminationofhatboard,"and"behaviorsthatsuggesteither anignoran ceof,orcontemptor,therequirementsoftheStateEnvironmentalQualityReviewAct." The court inLodeffound"thatthesestatements are susceptible toadefamatorymeaning,inasmuchasthey convey,ataminimum,eriouszmproprietyand, tworst,criminalbehavior."89A.D.3dat 1200.

Thestatementsinquestionheregofurther. Defendant hasalleged onmultiple occasionsthatMartyandDonnieMasonengagedin serious improprietywhileservingon the TownBoardbasedonher viewthat they acted without awaz-enessofparticular statelaws. Here,sheadmittedlyhasnoaddedbasisinfactto publishstatementsregarding MartyandDonnieMason'smorals andcharacterand willfullydid soanyway. Assuch, thestatementgoeswellbeyondpoliticaldecisionmaking,isundoubtedlysusceptibletoadefamatorymeaning, andisclearlydefamatory.

Moreover,because Defendanthadnoother knowledgeorfacts tosupportherbaselessstatement,therecanbenoquestion thatshepublishedthestatement withthesoleintenttodamageplaintiffsMartyandDonnieMason'spersonal and professional reputationsand causethemsignificant harm. Asaresult, thestatementwasunquestionably publishedwithactualmalice.

14


15/19

2. Defendant'sstatementsaccusingPlaintiffsofacrimeandassertingthatGaryKingsent thenoticearefalseandclearlydefamatory.Defendant'sstatements that Plaintiffswere"attemptingtotaketherightawayfrom

peopletobevoters againstwind,"wantedtodenycitizens...a choice,"andthat"GaryKingandhis"gang"hasintimidate[ed]or exacted]retribution against those peoplethathaveeitherregisteredtovoteinCapeVincentorchangedtheir primaryresidencetovotein CapeVincent"arefalseandundeniablydefamatory.

Atatementisdefamatoryif t "tendstoexposetheplaintiffto publiccontempt,idicule,aversionor disgrace,orinducean evilopinion ofhiminthemindsofight-thinking persons,andtodeprivehimofheir friendlyintercourseinsociety." Rinald iv. Holt,Rhinehart&Winston,Inc., 42N.Y.2d 369,379(1977).TheNewYork SupremeCourt has conceded thatitis"oftendifficult to distinguishanactionable statementofactfromaprotected statementofopinion."Thomas H.. Paul.,18N.Y.3d580, 842012).Therefore,toaid inthisdetermination,courtsexamine threefactors:

(1)whethertheallegedly defamatorywordshave a"precisemeaning"thatis"readilyunderstood";(2)whether thestatementcanbeprovenastrue oxfalse;and(3)"whethereitherthe full contextofthecommunicationin which thestatementappearsorthebroader social contextandsurroundingcircumstances aresuchasto signal...readers orlistenersthat what s beingreadorheardis likelytobeopinion, notfact.Rinaldi,42N.Y.2dat 379. Evenif theallegedly defamatorystatementsare"couchedinthelanguageofhypothesis orconclusion,"theymaybe"understoodbythereasonablereaderasassertionsoffact," and assuch, cannotbeconsideredprotectedopinion. Grossv.NewYorkTimesCo.,82N.Y.2d146,1541993}.

15


16/19

a. Thedefamatorystatements published byDefendantcanbereadilyunderstood ashavang aprecise meaning.DefendantnotonlyfalselyaccusesPlaintiffsof ttempting to stripCapeVincentcitizens

oftheirrighttovote, butalso allegesthat Plaintiffs intimidate voters andexact retributiontoaccomplishthisobjective.These statementshaveavery precisemeaning.Specifically,"duressand intimidation of oters"is acrimeintheStateofNew York.SeeNYCLSlec17-150.

Further,Defendantaccuses Plaintiffs of eing partofa gang''norder to effectuate thesesameobjectives. Nothing could befurtherth an thetruth. Plaintiffsaremerely membersorsupporters of CFG thatattemptstoput an endtosuspected, andconfirmedin at leastonesituationby acity assessor, voter fraudinCape Vin cent .Allegations thatPlaintiffs are partofaganginsinuatesthat Defendant hasfacts to supportthatPlaintiffs are "agroupof personsworking to unlawfulor antisocialends." Itcanhardly be said that the circulation ofapetition intheexerciseof recognizedrights isunlawful. Moreover, t hasalreadybeen establishedthatGary Kingdid not issue or causethe issuanceofhe notice onwhich Defendant wronglyrelies.

The statementsin questionare undoubtedly ca pable ofbeing readily understood asaccusing Plaintiffs of thecommissionof acrimewhich certainly carrieswith ita precisemeaning.

b.Thedefamatorystatements published by Defendantare capable ofbeingproven true orfalse.Plaintiffshavenever intimidatedregistered voters orexacted anytype ofetributionon

registered voters in Cape Vincentandtosuggest other wiseisridiculous. Itis noteven clearwhereDefendant allegesthat Plaintiffs even had contact withregistered votersto carryout theretribution orintimidation. Def endant's onlysupportforthefactual contentofhis statement is


17/19

that anoticewasse nttocityassessors andthatthe issuance of hatnotice,somehow,ntimidatedvotersandexactedretribution ontheminviolationof helaws ofhe StateofNew York.

Thatargumentsfrivolous ona number ofevels.First,ifDefendant hadinvestigated theissue ratherthanchasing her wildtheories,shewouldhavediscoveredthatGaryKingdid notsend thenotice in question. (King Aff. at ~19-20, xhi bitD.)Relying onthe issuan ceofhisnoticeinsuppo rt ofherargumentthat thestateme ntis true,therefore,fails. Asaresult,Defendanthasfailed to provi deanyevidencethatsuppo rts herclaimthat thesestatementsaretrue. Therefo re, theonlyevidencein therecord dictates thatthesta te men ts are false andunc on tro ve rt ed.

c. Thestatementsaccuse PlaYntiffs ofthecommission ofacringeand,the refore, are not eapable ofbeing protectedopinion.Knowingthat there isnofactual basis to supporther statements,Defendant alsoargues

that the defamatory sta te men ts are only her opinion and, thus, protected. Defendant,unfortunately,ignores clear precedent.NewYorkcourtsrecogn izethat statem ents that"convey,ataminimum,serious im pr op rie ty ,andatworst,criminalbehavior" are "susceptibleto adefamatory meaning." Loder,89A.D.3d at 1200.Indeed, becausethestatementsinquesti onaccuse Plaintiffsofhecommissionof acrime,theyareincapableofnno centconstruction.Thestatements, therefore, arenotaffordedconstitutionalprotection,evenwhencouched asop inion.See Ri naldi ,42N.Y.2d at382 holdingthat"accusationsofri min al activity,evenintheformofopinion,renot constitutionallyprotected.")

For these reasons, thestatementsthatPlaintiffsintimidatedand exactedretributiononregistered voters inCape Vincentare false,accusethePlaintiffsofhe commission ofacrime,andareclearly defamatory.

17


18/19

C. DefendantsNotnti tledToAn AwardofAttorneys'Fees.N.Y.Civil Rights Law 70-a and 76-ahaveabsolutelynothingtodowiththepresent

action.Defendanthas attemptedto recasttheissues in thiscaseinan efforttocloudherillegalconduct andtry, futilely,to recover her attorneys' fees.Theissuesinthis case are strictly limitedto Plaintiffs' attemptsto stop voterfrau d in CapeVincentnothing more. Defendant'sdiv er ge nt view onadifferingtopic,thedevelopmentofwindfarmsinCapeVincent,has nothingto dowiththepresentaction. Asaresult,Defendant'scounterclaim mustfailbecausevoterfraud in CapeVincent doesnot involveapublicapplicantorpermitteeas requiredby N.Y.CivilRightsLaw76-a.

Further,asDefendantpoints out,an action mustrelateto"efforts ofthe defendant toreporton,commenton, uleon, halleng e or opposesuchapplication orpermission." Here, hestatements in que st io n relate directly totheresolution notanapplication submitted to the TownBoard byBP. Moreover,Defendanthas presentednothingmorethanherownself-servingaffidavitthatshebelieves that BPsbehindthislawsuit. However, swithher otherself-servingstatements,that st at ement , in and oftself, isinsufficientto establishthe party's entitlementtosummaryudgment.DeephavenDi stre ssedOpp or tu ni ties Tradings, Ltd.,100 A.D.3dat 507.

Plaintiffshaverepeatedly assuredDefendantandcounselthatBPhasnointerest in thislawsuit andcertainly has notfinanced thislawsuit. (KingAff. at~j 22; KellyAff.at~( 12.) Asaresult,Defendant'sMotion mustbedenied.IV. CONCL~JSION

Fortheforegoingreasons,Plaintiffsrespectfully requ estthatthisCourt deny Defendant'sMotionfor SeminaryJudgment.

18};10.'3013Ici298813


19/19

Dated:April 10,2013 Respectfullysubmitted,

~'Josep .Brunner, sq.No.605341)Vorys,ater,Seymourand PeaseLLP301EastFourthStreetSuite3500,reatAmerican TowerCincinnati, Ohio45202Phone:(513)23-4099jmbrui~ner(a,vors~omandDavid B.eurtsen, Esq.Conboy,McKay, achman&Kendall,LLP407ShermanStreetWatertown,NY13601315-788-S1Q0315-788-3463-faxdb~eurtsen(a,cmbk.comCounsel orlaintiffs

19

King v Hludzenski Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary...

Documents

Transcript of King v Hludzenski Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary...