Brady v. NYP Holdings, Inc.

Background

James H. Brady, who represented himself, sued NYP Holdings, Inc., doing business as The New York Post, and Kathianne Boniello. The claims arose from a New York Post article written by Boniello about a lawsuit filed by Gregory Sheindlin against Brady. Brady alleged defamation and libel, false-light invasion of privacy, responsibility for an employee’s conduct, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In a March 31, 2022 order, the court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. The court ruled that the article was privileged under Section 74 of New York’s Civil Rights Law because it was a fair and substantially accurate report of a judicial proceeding. The court also ruled that the article’s two references to Brady as a “gadfly” were not independently defamatory. It dismissed Brady’s remaining claims and determined that his complaint violated a filing injunction previously imposed by another judge.

Motion for Reconsideration

Brady moved for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an exceptional request to change an earlier ruling based on an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. The court explained that reconsideration is not a way to reargue issues already presented or obtain a second opportunity to make the same case.

Brady argued that the court had addressed only one of the eighteen statements he claimed were defamatory. The court rejected that argument, explaining that it had considered the entire article and determined that all of its statements were substantially accurate accounts of the complaint and court proceedings. The court separately discussed the word “gadfly” because it did not come from the judicial proceedings, but concluded that the word was not independently defamatory.

Brady also argued that the complaint could not have violated the prior filing injunction because the other judge would have identified the violation when Brady showed him his claims. The court rejected that argument, relying on its earlier determination that the allegations in this complaint were inconsistent with those Brady had previously described and did violate the injunction. The court also rejected Brady’s remaining arguments because they attempted to relitigate issues raised during the earlier dismissal briefing.

Disposition

The court denied Brady’s motion for reconsideration. The court also denied the defendants’ request for $5,484.22 in legal fees incurred opposing that motion.