Why Defamation Lawsuits Are Often A Waste of Time and Money Under NY Law

In a decision that is scheduled to appear in tomorrow's print edition of the New York Law Journal, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Edwards has dismissed a plaintiff's defamation lawsuit. In plain English, the plaintiff in this case claimed that that the defendant had publicized nasty allegations about her. Interestingly, the Court did not dismiss the case because the plaintiff's claims  were not credible; to the contrary, the Court explicitly noted that the defendant had all but admitted making those derogatory statements. Rather, the Court dismissed the case because the plaintiff for the simple reason that she had not produced "one scintilla" of proof that she had sustained any damages as a direct result of the defendant's actions. 

I find this decision disturbing, because if accurate, the plaintiff's attorneys should never have taken the case. What were they thinking?

Pretty much every case has two elements: liability and damages. Even under the best case scenario, such as where the defendant concedes liability, your case remains worthless if you have sustained no personal injuries or damages. For example, if Ithe defendant runs a red light (or stop sign) as a pedestrian is proceeding through the crosswalk, and the defendant manages to avoid hitting or injuring the pedestrian, what do you think that pedestrian's damages are? That's right - zero; the pedestrian should be grateful.

The same analysis should hold true here. If the plaintiff sustained no demonstrable or provable damages as a result of the defamation (which more often than not will be the case so long as it remains in the private, rather than small business or commercial context), the defendant could get up and admit making the statements, but it will not change the ultimate result of the case - that it is worthless.