Opinion
March 14, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
In August 1988 the plaintiff George Von Gerichten was involved in an altercation with another motorist. As a result, he was arrested and criminal charges were filed against him. The incident was subsequently reported in the local weekly newspaper, the defendant Long Island Advance. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced the instant action against the defendant, alleging that his reputation was damaged by the article.
The defendant moved for summary judgment, on the basis that the challenged article was truthful because it accurately reported the incident as set forth in police reports and interviews (see, Bingham v. Gaynor, 203 N.Y. 27; Jung Hee Lee Han v State of New York, 186 A.D.2d 536; Licitra v. Faraldo, 130 A.D.2d 555; De Gregorio v. CBS, Inc., 123 Misc.2d 491). Moreover, the plaintiff did not demonstrate any gross irresponsibility by the defendant in its information-gathering and verification process prior to publication (see, Chapadeau v. Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 N.Y.2d 196, 199; see also, Karaduman v Newsday, Inc., 51 N.Y.2d 531). In opposing the motion, the plaintiff conceded the truth of the article but claimed that the headline used with it represented a "maliciously based form of sensational journalism which pays no regard to the truth".
Once a libel claim has been asserted by a private-figure plaintiff on a matter of public concern, such as is the case here, the burden is on the plaintiff to plead and prove that the words in suit are substantially false (see, Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 776; Immuno AG. v Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, cert denied 500 U.S. 954; Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283; Silsdorf v. Levine, 59 N.Y.2d 8, cert denied 464 U.S. 831; Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart Winston, 42 N.Y.2d 369, 379-380, cert denied 434 U.S. 969). The above principles are also applicable to the headline of the article, which must be read and evaluated in conjunction with the text it precedes (see, James v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 419; Brown v. Johnson Newspapers Corp., 84 A.D.2d 636; Schermerhorn v Rosenberg, 73 A.D.2d 276). If the headline is a fair index of an accurate article, it does not give rise to a cause of action (see, e.g., Gunduz v. New York Post Co., 188 A.D.2d 294).
The court erred in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment, as the plaintiff did not meet his burden of setting forth sufficient evidentiary facts to present a triable issue as to the falsity of the article, or the headline (see, Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski, supra, at 256; Pollnow v. Poughkeepsie Newspapers, 67 N.Y.2d 778; Karaduman v. Newsday, Inc., supra, at 545; Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart Winston, supra). Nor did he demonstrate any gross irresponsibility on the defendant's part, as the reporter relied on information supplied by the police and he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of such information (see, Mitchell v. Herald Co., 137 A.D.2d 213, 217; Carlucci v Poughkeepsie Newspapers, 88 A.D.2d 608, affd 57 N.Y.2d 883; Robart v. Post-Standard, 52 N.Y.2d 843, affg 74 A.D.2d 963). Bracken, J.P., Joy, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.