State Of New York v. New Israel Fund
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-02955
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In State of New York ex rel. TZAC, Inc. v. New Israel Fund, Judge Woods requested New York’s position before ruling on the dismissal motion.
The order concerns TZAC, Inc., the State of New York, New Israel Fund, and the New York Attorney General’s Office. It required the Attorney General’s Office to provide the State’s position before the court ruled on New Israel Fund’s motion to dismiss.
What happened
State of New York ex rel. TZAC, Inc. sued New Israel Fund under the New York False Claims Act. New Israel Fund asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the claims were barred because the allegations had been publicly disclosed on websites.
The parties disagreed about whether websites qualify as “news media” under the New York law’s public-disclosure bar. The opinion explains that the New York statute says information is not publicly disclosed merely because it is posted on the internet or a computer network, while the federal statute does not contain the same language.
Judge Woods did not decide the dismissal motion. He requested that the New York Attorney General’s Office provide the State’s position on how this difference between the state and federal statutes should affect the case by January 11, 2021.
The detailed version
- State Of New York v. New Israel Fund · No. 1:20-cv-02955
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 28, 2020
Background
TZAC, Inc., acting on behalf of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit under the New York State False Claims Act in New York Supreme Court on August 15, 2019. The complaint alleged that New Israel Fund violated that statute. New Israel Fund later moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
Issue Raised by the Motion
New Israel Fund argued that the claim was barred by the New York False Claims Act’s public-disclosure bar. That rule can prevent a lawsuit when the same allegations have already been publicly disclosed by the news media. The opinion states that New York courts look to federal False Claims Act law when interpreting the New York statute.
The court identified a potentially important difference between the two laws. The New York statute was amended in 2010 to clarify that information is not considered publicly disclosed by the news media merely because it was posted on the internet or a computer network. The federal statute does not contain that same language.
TZAC argued that this amendment made the New York public-disclosure bar narrower than the federal bar and that a company’s website is not news media unless the company is itself a news organization. New Israel Fund argued that the amendment had little effect and that some websites could still fall within the public-disclosure bar even if they were not traditional news outlets.
Court’s Action
Judge Gregory H. Woods requested briefing from the New York Attorney General’s Office. He asked the office to provide the State of New York’s position on how the difference between the state and federal statutes affects the meaning of the “news media” provision. The court stated that the State likely had an interest in the issue and that its position would assist the court in evaluating New Israel Fund’s motion to dismiss. The requested submission was due January 11, 2021.
The opinion does not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and does not resolve the public-disclosure issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.