Sheindlin v. Brady

Background

Gregory Sheindlin sued James Brady for defamation based on statements Brady made after bringing an earlier case against Sheindlin. Brady answered and asserted counterclaims for defamation per se, false-light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and an unspecified tort.

The counterclaims concerned an online New York Post article published on April 3, 2021. The article described Brady’s litigation history and Sheindlin’s defamation lawsuit. Brady alleged that the article was false and part of a coordinated effort involving Sheindlin, the New York Post, reporter Kathianne Boniello, and Sheindlin’s attorney Michael Sussman to influence potential jurors against him.

Motion and legal standard

Sheindlin moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a pleading does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and viewed reasonable inferences in Brady’s favor. Because Brady was representing himself, the court construed his counterclaims liberally, but explained that he still had to allege enough facts to make his claims plausible.

Court’s reasoning

The court adopted the reasoning from its decision dismissing Brady’s similar claims against the New York Post and Boniello. It concluded that the allegations did not identify an actionable defamatory statement or otherwise state a viable claim.

The court also held that Brady did not plausibly allege that Sheindlin participated in publishing the article. Brady relied primarily on the article’s inclusion of a screenshot of Sheindlin’s law-firm profile and the later removal of that screenshot. The court found that these facts did not establish that Sheindlin had any contact with Boniello or anyone else at the New York Post, and did not support Brady’s allegation of collusion.

In addition, the court held that New York Civil Rights Law § 74 protected the article. That law provides an absolute privilege for a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding. The court found that the article substantially accurately reported Sheindlin’s complaint and the court proceedings. It explained that the privilege would apply even if Boniello had received a copy of the complaint from Sheindlin, because reporting on the complaint would not make Sheindlin liable for the article.

Disposition

The court granted Sheindlin’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Brady’s counterclaims with prejudice. The court also declined Sheindlin’s request for sanctions against Brady at that time. That denial was without prejudice, so the sanctions request could be renewed later if appropriate. Judge Lewis J. Liman directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion docket entry.