Sheindlin v. Brady

Background

Gregory Sheindlin sued James H. Brady for defamation. Brady responded with counterclaims for defamation, false-light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and an unspecified tort claim. The counterclaims concerned a New York Post article titled “Judge Judy’s son Gregory Sheindlin sues court gadfly for ‘defamatory’ videos.” Brady alleged that the article was false and defamatory and resulted from a coordinated effort involving the New York Post, the article’s writer, Sheindlin, and Sheindlin’s attorney.

In a March 31, 2022 order, the court dismissed Brady’s counterclaims with prejudice. The court concluded that the counterclaims did not identify an actionable defamatory statement or another valid cause of action and did not plausibly allege Sheindlin’s involvement in publishing the article. The court also held that the article was protected by Section 74 of New York’s Civil Rights Law, which provides a privilege for substantially accurate reports of statements made in judicial proceedings.

Brady moved for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice.

Brady’s Arguments

Brady argued that the court should have separately analyzed each of the eighteen statements he claimed were defamatory. The court rejected that argument, explaining that it had considered the statements and determined that Section 74 applied to the article as a whole because each statement substantially accurately reported Sheindlin’s complaint and the court proceedings.

Brady also argued that some statements in Sheindlin’s complaint were unrelated to Sheindlin’s lawsuit and therefore were not protected by Section 74. The court disagreed, noting that the statements were included in the complaint and that statements summarizing or restating allegations in a court filing can fall within the privilege.

Brady further argued that a jury should decide whether Sheindlin filed his complaint to facilitate later defamation. The court explained that a narrow exception to Section 74 can apply when a lawsuit is brought maliciously and solely to create material for later defamation. It held that Brady had not alleged facts showing that Sheindlin filed the lawsuit for that purpose. The court also rejected Brady’s argument that he had adequately alleged Sheindlin’s involvement in publishing the article because that argument repeated issues raised in the original motion to dismiss.

Ruling

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied Brady’s motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that none of Brady’s arguments identified a basis for reconsidering the earlier order. The earlier dismissal of Brady’s counterclaims with prejudice remained in effect.