King v Hludzenski ~ Reply Memorandum of Law

7/30/2019 King v Hludzenski ~ Reply Memorandum of Law

1/10

STATEOFNEWYORKSUPREMECOURT COUNTYOFJEFFERSON

GARYKING,HARVEYWHITE,ONNIE MASON,MARTYMASON,AUL MASON,ARLENEBURTON,DANIELBURTONANDFRANKGIAQUINTO, IndexNo. 012-1654

Plaintiffs,

~KATHRYNHLUDZENSKI,ICHARD C. WILEY,R.ANDJOHNDOES,-10,

Defendants.

REPLYMEMORANDUM

BOND,CHOENECK&KING, LLCAttorneysogDefendant KathrynHlu dzenskiOffice and P.O. AddressOneLin coln CenterSy racus e,NewYork 13202-1355Telephone:(315)18-8000

2142045.1


2/10

TABLEOFCONTENTSPage

PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT.. ... .. ... .... .. ...... .. ... .... .. .. ... ...... .. ... ... ... ...... .. ... ...... .. ... .... .. .. ... ... ... .... .. 1DISCUSSION ....... .. ... .... .. ...... .. ... .... .. .. ... .... .. .. ... ... ... .... .. .. ... ...... .. ... ...... .. ... ... ... ...... .. ... ...... .. ... .... .. .. ... .1

THESTATEMENTSALLEGED IN PLAINTIFFS'COMPLAINTARENOTDEFAMATORYBECAUSETHEY AREEITHERFACTUALLYTRUEORARETHEOPINION OFMS.HLUDZENSKI,ANDDISCOVERYSUNNECESSARY ... .. ... ... ... .... .. .. ... .... .. .. ... ...... .... .. .. ... ...... .. ... ...... .. ... .... .. ...... .. ... ...... .. ... .... .. .. .1CONCLUSION .......... .. .... .. .. ... ...... .. ... .... .. .... ....... ......... .. .... .. .. ... ...... .. ... .... .. .... ....... ......... .. .... .. .. ... .....8

2i a2o as .~i


3/10

PRELIMINARYSTATEMENTThis replymemorandum issubmitted in further supportofMs. ludzenski's

motion forsummary judgment.Plaintiffs'opposition toMs.ludzenski's motion centersonthe purportedneed

for discovery. Plaintiffs havefailed to demonstratewhatdiscovery isneeded for themto opposethismotion . Thiss ade famati on action, andthetextof hestatementsthatPlaintiffs allege aredefam atory intheir com plaintis not disputed. The groundsofhemotion arethattheallegedlydefamat orystatementsaretruthful or are protectedopinion,andthereforeare not defamatory as amatter of aw. Plaintiffs have failedtoshowhowthepropo sed discoveryis related to thegrounds on which summaryjudgmentssought.

DISCUSSION

THE STATEMENTSALLEGED NPLAINTIFFS'COMPLAINTARENOTDEFAMATORYBECAUSETHEYAREEITHERFACTUALLYTRUE OR ARE THEOPINIONOFMS.HLUDZENSKI,ND DISCOVERYSUNNECESSARYAsetforth in Defendant' smoving papers,Plaintiffshavealleged that three

particularstatements postedonMs. ludzenski'sblog are defamatory. The irst statement,contained inparag raph 17 of laintiffs' complaint,only referencesPlaintiffsDonnieMason andMartyMason.Theallegedlydefamatorystatement was:

MartyMason&Donnysic] Mason Men ofubstandardValuesandCharacter ...havedep loy eda desperate attempt to stripcitizens of heirfundamental righttovote[and]hisclearlydemonstratesthat thesemenarenot fit to serve inany capacityinourlocalgovernment.

Complaint,7.Thegroundsofhemotion forsummaryjudgmentare undisputed: thatDonnie

and Marty Mason supported apetitionandpresentedaresolution totheTown Board,which

2142045.1


4/10

would requirevoterstopresentaNewYork Statedriver'slicensewith a CapeVi ncentaddresswhenvotinginTownelections. It isalsoundisputed thatat the timethe resolution waspresented,two Town Board membersexpressedtheirconcern thatthe resolution was unlawful.Hlud zenskiAffidavit,Exhibit C; laintiffs'Memorandum,t 6. Mostmportantly,tisundisputed thattheVoter IDResolution was aterrescinded afterthe TownreceivedanopinionfromtheTownAttorney that theresolutionwasunlawfulunderboth state and federal la w.Hludzenski Affidavit, Exhibit E;laintiffs'Memorandum,t6. These factsarenot fromMs.Hludzenski's affidavit, butare fromthemin utesofheTownBoardonwhichDonnie MasonandMartyMason weremembers.

Tellingly, neither Donnieno rMartyMason has submittedanaffidavitinoppositiontothis motioncalling intoquestionthefactual basis for theAugust12,2011,logpostor anyofhe groundsin themotion.Aslaintiffsdonot dispute thefactualstatements inquestion, discoveryisnotnecessary.

Thesecond allegedly defama tory statement likewise relates to the illegal Vote IDResolution supportedbyPlaintiffsandstates:

Recentlythreeof ur Town Board members passeda resolution.Thebasis for thisresolutionwasapetitionsubmitted totheTownBoardbyHarold Wiley.There wereaittleover200ignatures onthis petition.The petitionwas arequestfor theTownofCapeVincent,TownBoardtotakeactionandimpose requirements onCertainPeople tolimitvoter's rightsin order toprevent whatHarold Wileycalled"Voter fraud." Someofhesignatures onhispetitionmayhavebeenobtained fraudulently throughmisrepresentationhowever;I am ertainthatEdsall, Reinbeck and Binsleyknewexactlywhattheywereall signing.

2142045.12


5/10

Ad dit ion al ly afewsignaturesbelonged to apeople that holdpositionsin ourmunicipal government, ig nin gthis petitionsymbolizesabroken trustaswellaspoorjudgment.Othersthat sign ed [t he petition] were windLeaseho lders .Relatives of easeholdersandmembersofhat"grass Roots"organ izationVoters forWind.Harvey White,Gary King, aulMason,Karen Stumph, ethWhite,Margaret Jollif Darrel Burton,Marlene Burton,onamea few.The group callingthemselvesVoters forWind(VFW)reatte mpti ng to takethe rightaway frompeopleto be voters againstwind.The VFWwants to denycitizensofurcommunityacho ice .

HludzenskiAffidavit,ExhibitJ; Complaint, 8.This statement,whenreadasawhole, ssimply afollow-up onthe events ofhe

TownBoard meetingof August11,2011,whentheillegal VoterID Re sol utionwas adopt ed.ItidentifiescertainofhePlaintiffs asmembersof he group knownasVotersforWind.GaryKing, he onlyplaintiffwhosubmittedanaffidavitin opp osi tio ntothis motion,does not denythat heisamember ofVFW.n fact, Plaintiffsallege in theirown Complaintthat theyaremembers ofVFW. Complaint, j11.Theremainderofhe factualstatementsinthe allegedlydefamatorystatementare that the TownBoardpasseda resolution limiting voting rights anddidsoinresponse tothe petition si gne dby the Plaintiffs.Again,laintiffshavenot submittedanyproof n oppositionto thismotion disputing thesefacts.Ra ther, theyconfirm the veracity ofthem.. Theirproposeddiscoveryis simplyunrelated to thegroundsofhe motion.

The thirdallegedly defamatorystatementstates:Harold C.Wiley ChairmanCapeVincentDemocratic Par ty hasteamedupwith Gary KingChairmanofanewgangCitizensforFairGovernment).Their nextmission appearsto be intimidationoxexactingretribution againstthosepeople thathaveeitherregistered tovote in Cape Vincentor changed their primary

2142045.13


6/10

residence. n ordertovoteinCape Vincent.Harold Wiley andGaryKing collected ahitlist of namesofach newvoter inCapeVincent andsent letters to theassessors of hosecommunitieswhere these residents own notherhome.Alerting the assessorthat thesepeoplehave registered to vote,the letter statesthat weprovideyou with thisinformation in theeventthat thereareimplications foryour community'simplementationofheSTARprogram..However,t does not endthere they have starteda newetterwritingcampaign. Theyare writing letters toallthenewlyregistered unethical andimmoral votersinCape Vincentaskingthemtoconsidervoting for the verymenthat wanted to taketheirvoting rightsagain.Doest getanynuttierthan this?All three ofhesecandidatesMason,Mason and Whitehaveconflictsofnterest. MasonandMasonhaveproventhatthey areinterested inpersonalfinancial gain overwhats right forourcommunity.

HludzenskiAffidavit, Ex hibitK;omplaint,~ 9.Theett er referenced intheblog post isattachedto the HludzenskiAffidavit asExhibitL.

Thestatement thatMr.King sent aparticular letterthat has hisnameand itle onitis not defamatory. It is unclearhowMr. King'sreputationis harmedbyastatementthathesent aettersuppo rt ed bythe groupthathechairs,whichsay sexactlywhat Mr. Kingnowsaysthisgroupbelieves in hisaffidavit: i.e.,that Citizens forFair Government believes that part-timeresidentsofCape Vincentare registering to vote in Cape Vincentas apart of n effort to receivea STARxemptionontheir propertiesin CapeVincent.' Accordingly,hecould not be defamedby astatementthat hesentsuchaett er .

Plaintiffs attempt to defeat summaryjudgmentbysubmittingthe affidavitofMr.King, nwhich headmits thathe letter purportstobefromhim, ut denies thathedraftedit orauthorizedittobe issued. Plaintiffsassert that discoveryis therefore necessary. This argument snonsensical and does notsupportPlaintiffs' purported needfordiscovery. PlaintiffGary King2 azo~ts.4


7/10

The balanceof heallegedly defamatory statement onts faceis clearly protectedopinion,andnot an assertionofact. Forexample, Doesn'tt getanynuttierthanthis?" sobviouslynota actual assertion aboutMr.ing.Inthe context ofa def amat ion action,a factualstatementisonecapableof eingproventrueorfalse. Grossv. NewYorkTimes Co.,82 N.Y.2d146,152-153 1993). Like wise , hestatementthatthe lette r sought "retribution"isonly heropinionbasedonthetext ofhele tte r. Hl udzenski Affidavit,0. Regardlessof heth er Mr.King actuallysent the le tter that had hisname and itleont, Ms.ludzenski's reportingofhelet te rs and heropinion of hepu rpo se beh indthe let te rs are notdefamatory. In anyevent, astheChairman ofCFG,e s apublicfigureandhe canhardlyclaim Ms.lu dzenskiacted withmalicious indifference tothe truthbystatingthatMr. Kingsenta etter making statements whichCFG upports and that hashisname on t.

Plaintiffs attemptto createquestionsof act onthis motionby providing adissertation onthereasons and intentions underlying the petitionandVoter IDResolution. Thisdissertation is comp letelyirrelevantto the motion.Whats relevant arethewordsofhestatementsandwhetheror not theyaresupported byundisputedfacts, which theyare.It isbeyonddispute thattheVoter IDResolutionwasunlawfulbecause itattempted to imposerestrictions onvoting in Townlections,whichcannot bedoneby aTown Board.TheTownBoardrescinded the Resolutionbecause itwas unlawfulanddidsoonthe adviceofhe TownAttorney. Discovery s notneededtoshow thesebasic facts,noneofwhichare in dispute.

Plaintiffs attempt toavoid dismissal by asking fordiscovery related to"theresolution, petition,community opinion of laintiffs, determinationof esidencyby other

cannot cla im thathe needs discovery to determinewhether he actuallysent the le tter.Regardless, Ms.ludzenski'sstatementthat Mr. Kingsent the let ter is not defamatory.2142045.5


8/10

municipalities,communicationsby DefendantandotherthirdpartiesregardingPlaintiffs,andDefe ndant's stateofmind andintention."Plaintiffs' Memorandum, t9. None of he propo seddiscoverygoesto the grounds for thismotion: that the Plaintiffs didsupport aVo ter IDlawinCape Vincent,andthattheTown Boarddidrescind the Vo ter IDResolution aftertheTownAtto rney adviseditwas llegal.

Furth ermore,the discovery that Plaintiffs claim they needis within theparticularknowledge ofhe Plaintiffsthemselves,who admittedlyaremembers ofhe groupthat"form ula teda measure todrastically reduce oreliminate" perceivedvoterfraud inCapeVincent.Plaintiffs' Memorandum,t 5. Plaintiffs'own oppositionpapersstatethat theefforts ofCFGresulted in the petitionandAugust11,2011,esolutionthatformed the basis of he allegedlydefamatory statements. Plaintiffs'Memorandum,t5. Thus,heir cla imedneed fordiscoveryfrom thedefendantregarding theresolution andpetitionis baseless.

Li kewise,Plaintiffs' demandfor discoveryintoMs. ludzenski'sstate ofmindandintent is irrelevant. Onamotion for summaryjudgment,aplaintiffmust presentevidencewith"convincing clarity" that"th e statement at issue was published withactual malice,hat is ,withknowledgethat itwas alse orwith reckless disregard ofwhether t was alse."Freemanv.Johnston,84N.Y.2d52,71994).Ms. lu dzenskisubmitted aswornaffidavit,settingforththefactual basis for herstatements andopinions, whichsinthe record beforethe Court.Plaintiffs' argumenthat the wordsused byMs.ludzenski weremeantoimply acrime underthe NewYorkStateElectionLaw sbaseless and unsupported by the allegedlyde famato rystatements.SeeHludzenski Affidavit,0.

The proposed discoveryis nothing morethan aneffort tounnecessarilyprolongthisbaseless defamation action,whichwasclearlybrought to squelch debate on a matterof

214 2045.1


9/10

public importance. Plaintiffs want o exert pressure on defendants by imposing legal costs ofconducting discovery. The law is clear that summaryjudgment s particularly appropriate inlibel cases for these very reasons. Immuno AG . Moor-Jankowski,77 N.Y.2d 235,256 1991).

Plaintiffs also argue in their opposition that Defendant s not entitled to herattorneys' fees because the statements in question do not directly relate to the BP esolution.This statement is disingenuous. Plaintiffs in their own Complaint allege that"the posts andcomments ostensibly relate to Defendants'disagreement with Plaintiffs' position on thedevelopment of wind farms in Cape Vincent." Complaint,~ 13. Plaintiffs further allege thatthey support the development of wind farms in Cape Vincent, are "pro-wind,"and are involvedin Voters for Wind and Citizens for Fair Government. Complaint, ~(9, 0, 11. The allegedlydefamatory statements, when read as a whole, ll relate the unlawful Voter ID Resolution to thecontroversy of wind farms in Cape Vincent. Plaintiffs' argument now hat the statements havenothing to do with wind farms in Cape Vincent is incredulous.

Plaintiffs do not need discovery to oppose this motion. The text of he allegedlydefamatory statements is not in dispute, nor are the factual bases behind them. There is no needto undergo expensive discovery to come to the conclusion that the Court can come to on thealready established record.

Importantly, Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendant's motion for summary judgmentdismissing Plaintiffs' intentional infliction of motional distress and interference with businessrelations causes of ction. As he motion with respect to those causes of ction is unopposed, tshould be granted.

zia2oas.i7


10/10

CONCLUSIONForthese reasonsandthereasonssetforthinDefendant'smovingpapers,

Defendant'smotionshouldbe granted.

Dated: April15,2013 BOND, CHOENECK&KING,LLCBy: ~,T~~

nat anB.Fellows,Esq.SuzanneM.esser,Esq.

AttorneysogDefendantKathrynHlicdzenskiOffice and P.O.AddressOne LincolnCenterSyracuse,New York 13202-1355Telephone:(315)18-8000

2142045.(g

Documents

King v Hludzenski ~ Reply Memorandum of Law