Upload
stuyvesanttownfraud
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/12/2019 Racketeering Defendant Lawyer Debra Guzov Esq Memorandum of Law in Support of Racketeering Defendant Ad
1/11
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK-----------------------------------------------------------------XADAM R. ROSE,
Index No.Petitioner,
-against-
YAHOO! INC. and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
TUMBLR, INC., AUTOMATTIC, INC., andTWITTER, INC.,
Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE
GUZOV, LLC
Debra J. Guzov, Esq.
Stephanie A. Prince, Esq.
900 Third Ave., 5th FloorNew York, New York 10022
Tel: 212-371-8008
Attorneys for Petitioner Adam R. Rose
ILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2014 INDEX NO. 152439/
YSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/
8/12/2019 Racketeering Defendant Lawyer Debra Guzov Esq Memorandum of Law in Support of Racketeering Defendant Ad
2/11
Petitioner Adam R. Rose, by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully
submits this Memorandum of Law in Support of the Order to Show Cause Compelling
Disclosure of Identity pursuant to CPLR 3102(c), compelling Yahoo! Inc. and/or its
wholly-owned subsidiary Tumblr.com (collectively referred to as Tumblr), Automattic,
Inc., (Automattic) and Twitter, Inc. (Twitter) to disclose identifying information
associated with the person or persons (hereinafter Bloggers) who posted several
weblogs, which contained actionable, defamatory statements about Mr. Rose on websites
under the operation and control of Tumblr, Automattic, and Twitter.
In light of the fact that (1) Mr. Rose has demonstrably meritorious claims for
defamation against the anonymous blogger[s] and (2) the identifying information is
material and necessary to the framing of his complaint, Petitioner respectfully requests
that this Court issue the requested order.
No previous application for an order to show cause has been made in this or any
other court. Affirmation of Debra Guzov, (Guzov Aff.) 6.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In or about January of 2013, Mr. Rose heard from an industry colleague that a
blog that had historically contained long, somewhat incomprehensible posts accusing
dozens of people and entities connected to the sale of the Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper
Village (Stuy Town Property) with all sorts of wrongdoing, now contained some
vicious, patently false and defamatory statements about him, personally. SeeAffidavit of
Adam R. Rose in Support of Order to Show Cause Compelling Disclosure of Identity
(Rose Aff."') 3. Mr. Rose has discovered four (4) entries within the last six (6)
months, dated on or about March 11, 2014, March 2, 2014, February 3, 2014 and January
8/12/2019 Racketeering Defendant Lawyer Debra Guzov Esq Memorandum of Law in Support of Racketeering Defendant Ad
3/11
7, 2014 on a weblog entitled Tishman Speyer Stuyvesant Town (NYC) Fraud located at
the website:http://tishmanspeyerfraud.tumblr.com (the Tumblr Blog). Rose Aff. 4.
Based on the context and subject matter of the postings, as well as fact that his full name
and the name of his company, Rose Associates, are published on the Tumblr Blog, he can
confirm that the contents are about him. Id.
Mr. Rose was alarmed to see that the Tumblr Blog entries and the related
commentary were used to falsely describe him as a corrupt white collar criminal, to
accuse him of participating in illegal, criminal activity, including an illegal tax fraud
scheme, to falsely accuse him of being under criminal investigation by the federal
authorities, and, perhaps the worst, of having a connection to child pornography. Rose
Aff. 5. The individual entries on the Tumblr Blog speak for themselves. They are so
clearly aimed at casting him as a criminal racketeer (even claiming Mr. Rose was under
indictment) accusing him of tax fraud and of concealing child pornography and are
unwarranted, hurtful, embarrassing, potentially damaging to his reputation in the real
estate industry and, most significantly, they are flatly untrue. Rose Aff. 7. Mr. Rose
has never been investigated, arrested, arraigned, indicted or charged with any criminal
activity. Id.
On or about August 1, 2013, Mr. Rose discovered another website,
http://tishmanspeyerfraud.wordpress.com,(the Wordpress Blog) with one (1) entry
dated July 3, 2013, which is the corresponding date that the blog entry was published in
permanent form on the Internet. Rose Aff 8. Based on the fact that his full name and
the name of his business are both used on this blog, Mr. Rose knows the contents are
about him. Id. The Wordpress Blog entry and the other posted commentary were used to
2
http://tishmanspeyerfraud.tumblr.com/http://tishmanspeyerfraud.tumblr.com/http://tishmanspeyerfraud.tumblr.com/http://tishmanspeyerfraud.wordpress.com/http://tishmanspeyerfraud.wordpress.com/http://tishmanspeyerfraud.wordpress.com/http://tishmanspeyerfraud.tumblr.com/8/12/2019 Racketeering Defendant Lawyer Debra Guzov Esq Memorandum of Law in Support of Racketeering Defendant Ad
4/11
describe him as a Criminal Mischief Defendant[], and to accuse him of illegal, criminal
activity, including felony criminal mischief, and felony destruction of someones
property, real estate fraud and tax fraud and corruption. Rose Aff. 9. The statements
and suggestions made on the Wordpress Blog entry are malicious and untrue.1Id.
In addition, at the web address https://twitter.com/StuyTownFraud/, Mr. Rose
discovered a Twitter account entitled TishmanSpeyerFraud, (the Twitter Account)
using the name @StuyTownFraud where Mr. Rose saw three (3) entries, dated
February 3, 2014, July 4, 2013 and September 2, 2013, which are the corresponding dates
that the entries were published in a permanent form on the internet. Rose Aff. 11.
Based on the subject matter and fact that his full name is published on this Twitter
Account, Mr. Rose can confirm that the contents are about him. Id. The headline
featured prominently in one posting is particularly galling and reveals the true malice of
the author:
BREAKING NEWS: What do Racketeering Defendant Adam Rose,
Child Pornography and Disney all have in common?
Rose Aff. 11.
Like the two blogs, the Twitter Account posts and related comments repeat and
rehash the same patently false claims of Mr. Roses illegal, criminal activity, including
having a connection to child pornography, being a violent criminal, a racketeer, of hate
crimes, and alluding to his having served prison sentences. Rose Aff. 12. The
statements and suggestions made on the Twitter Account posts are malicious and untrue. Id.
1The entry on the Wordpress Blog is obviously written by the same person who wrote the Tumblr Blog and
is also clearly aimed at casting Mr. Rose as a criminal, accusing him of various felonies, fraud and
corruption and is unwarranted, hurtful, embarrassing, potentially damaging to his reputation in the real
estate industry and, significantly, flatly untrue. Rose Aff. 10.
3
8/12/2019 Racketeering Defendant Lawyer Debra Guzov Esq Memorandum of Law in Support of Racketeering Defendant Ad
5/11
Every single one of the statements discussed above is an outright lie. The real
estate industry is very much dependent on community standing, business and personal
reputations. Rose Aff. 14. The Tumblr Blog, Wordpress Blog, and Twitter Account
are malicious, untrue and extremely damaging to Mr. Roses professional reputation.
Rose Aff. 6. For thirty (30) years, Mr. Rose has been involved in all aspects of the real
estate industry, including development, design, leasing, sales and management of high-
rise apartment buildings. Id. Statements falsely accusing him of such abhorrent criminal
activity affect his reputation and desirability as a property developer and/or manager. Id.
This defamatory content goes far beyond the sphere of protected free speech.
These are malicious, actionable lies whose falsity can easily be proven. However, in
order to proceed with a defamation claim against the author of these posts, it is necessary
that Mr. Rose obtain this identifying information.
Respondents herein require a court order before they will turn over identifying
information of anonymous bloggers/tweeters. Guzov Aff. 3-6. Therefore, Mr. Rose
respectfully requests that an order be issued compelling Tumblr, Automattic, and Twitter
to identify the Blogger[s] who created the defamatory weblogs and tweets described
herein.
4
8/12/2019 Racketeering Defendant Lawyer Debra Guzov Esq Memorandum of Law in Support of Racketeering Defendant Ad
6/11
ARGUMENT
In the Guzov Affirmation and the accompanying Rose Affidavit, Petitioner has set
forth facts sufficient for this Court to compel Tumblr, Automattic, and Twitter to disclose
the identity(ies) of the anonymous Blogger(s) who has been publishing the
aforementioned defamatory statements. It is respectfully submitted and will be
demonstrated below that this application should be granted in all respects and result in
orders requiring defendants to produce forthwith the Blogger's name(s), address(es), e-
mail address(es), phone number(s), IP address(es) and IP account history and any other
information that the defendants may possess that would assist in ascertaining the
Bloggers identity(ies).
I. STANDARD OF REVIEWNew York's CPLR 3102(c) allows a potential plaintiff to seek discovery of
certain information prior to commencement of an action as follows: "Before an action is
commenced, disclosure to aid in bringing an action, to preserve information or to aid in
arbitration may be obtained but only by court order." CPLR 3102(c) [McKinney 2007];
see also Cohen v. Google, 25 Misc. 3d 945, 952, 887 N.Y.S.2d 424 (2009). A request for
pre-action disclosure is most properly sought by the commencement of a special
proceeding (seeCPLR 3102(c), Commentary C3102:6 (2007); see alsoDaly v. 26-28
Market St., Inc., 21 A.D.3d 853, 801 N.Y.S.2d 596 (lst Dep't 2005). New York courts
routinely grant pre-action disclosure under CPLR 3102(c) for the purpose of
ascertaining the identities of defendants as necessary to bring an action (see, e.g.,
Alexander v. Spanierman Gallery, LLC, 33 A.D.3d 411, 822 N.Y.S.2d 506 (1st Dept
2006); Toal v. Staten Island University Hospital,300 A.D.2d 592, 752 N.Y.S.2d 372 (2d
5
8/12/2019 Racketeering Defendant Lawyer Debra Guzov Esq Memorandum of Law in Support of Racketeering Defendant Ad
7/11
Dep't 2002); Perez v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 84 A.D.2d 789, 44
N.Y.S.2d 23 (2d Dept 1981)). In order to be entitled to the relief described in CPLR
3102(c), however, the movant must first show that it has a meritorious cause of action
and that the information being sought is material and necessary to the actionable wrong."
Liberty Imports, Inc. v. Borguet, et. al., 146 A.D.2d 535, 536, 536 N.Y.S.2d 784 (1st
Dep't 1989).
With respect to using a CPLR 3102(c) petition to unmask persons who
anonymously defame others via the Internet, New York Courts have held that it is
appropriate for the respondent to "provide [the] petitioner with information as to the
identity of the [persons], specifically that person's or persons' name(s), address(es), email
address(es), IP address(es), telephone number(s), and all other information that would
assist in ascertaining the identity of that person or persons." Cohen, 25 Misc. 3d at 952.
II. PETITIONER IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH A LIKELIHOOD OFSUCCESS ON THE MERITS BASED ON THE ANONYMOUS
BLOGGERS DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS WHICH
CONSTITUTE LIBEL PER SE
A CPLR 3102( c) "petitioner is entitled to pre-action disclosure of information
as to the identity of an anonymous blogger, where, like here, he has sufficiently
established the merits of [his] proposed cause of action for defamation against that person
or persons, and the information sought is material and necessary to identify the potential
defendants." Cohen, 25 Misc. 3d at 949, (citingMatter of Uddin v. New York City
Transit Authority,27 A.D.3d 265, 810 N.Y.S.2d 198 (1st Dep't 2006) andMatter of
Stewart v. New York City Transit Authority, 112 A.D.2d 939, 492 N.Y.S.2d 459 (2d Dep't
1985)).
Defamation is defined as the making of a false statement of fact which tends to
6
8/12/2019 Racketeering Defendant Lawyer Debra Guzov Esq Memorandum of Law in Support of Racketeering Defendant Ad
8/11
expose the plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace. Sandals Resorts
Intl Ltd. v. Google, Inc.,86 A.D.3d 32, 38 925 N.Y.S.2d 407, 412(1st Dept. 2011)
(internal citations omitted). The elements of a cause of action for defamation consist of
"a false statement, published without privilege or authorization to a third-party,
constituting fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and it must either
cause special harm or constitute defamationper se." Dillon v. City of New York,261
A.D.2d 34, 38, 704 N.Y.S.2d 1, 6 (1st Dep't 1999). Additionally, New York courts have
recognized that in finding a cause of action for libel, the statements at issue must have
been statements of fact, as opposed to statements of opinion. See, e.g., Penn Warranty
Corp. v. Di Giovanni,10 Misc.3d 998, 1002 (N.Y. Sup.Ct. 2005).
A. Factual Nature of the Defamatory StatementsWhen determining whether a given statement is an expression of opinion or an
assertion of fact, the determination is to be made on the basis of what the average person
hearing or reading the communication would take it to mean.'' Steinhilber v. Alphonse,
68 N.Y.2d. 283, 290, 501 N.E.2d 550, 508 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. 1986). Furthermore, in
reaching such a determination, the factors to be considered are:
(1) whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaningwhich is readily understood; (2) whether the statements are capable
of being proven true or false; and (3) whether either the full
context of the communication in which the statement appears orthe broader social context and surrounding circumstances are such
as to signal ... readers or listeners that what is being read or heard
is likely to be opinion, not fact.
Grossi v. New York Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d. 146, 153, 623 N.E.2d 1163, 603 N.Y.S.2d 813
(1993) (internal citations omitted).
The numerous egregious statements at issue in this case were clearly asserted not
7
8/12/2019 Racketeering Defendant Lawyer Debra Guzov Esq Memorandum of Law in Support of Racketeering Defendant Ad
9/11
as mere opinions, but rather as facts, which were specifically designed to command the
attention and immediate response of their intended readers. Statements are considered
defamatory, in that they are statements of fact and not opinions where their tone is
straightforward and declaratory, and does not appear to be intended as a juvenile attempt
to achieve humor.'' Suarez v. Angelet, 90 A.D.3d 906, 935 N.Y.S.2d 599 (2d Dep't
2011). Statements such as those alleging that Petitioner Rose is being criminally
investigated" or that he is connected to child pornography constitute such
straightforward, factual indictments.
B.
Publication of the Statements
By posting the writings on the two blogs and Twitter, the Blogger broadcasted the
libelous statements on the Internet and clearly published and broadcasted the statements
to many more people than just the Petitioner. The Blogger was broadcasting to anyone
who could find the page or who was searching for information on Adam Rose or his
company, Rose Associates. The blog posts were published with the specific intention of
harming the Petitioner personally and professionally.
C. False and Defamatory Nature of the StatementsThe Court need only examine the specific statements made in the posts and
consider the manners and contexts in which they were published in order to determine
that the postings and e-mails were defamatory. Petitioners will proceed under a theory
that both the blog postings and each of the e-mails was libelousper se. The definition of
libelper seis any written or printed article ... [which] tends to expose the plaintiff to
public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace or induce an evil opinion of him in the
minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive him of their friendly intercourse in
8
8/12/2019 Racketeering Defendant Lawyer Debra Guzov Esq Memorandum of Law in Support of Racketeering Defendant Ad
10/11
society.''Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42 N.Y.2d 369, 379, 366 N.E.2d
1299, 397 N.Y.S.2d 943 (N.Y. 1977). Four categories are considered libelousper se.
They are statements that (1) charge plaintiff with a serious crime[] (2) tend to injure
plaintiff in its business, trade or profession, (3) plaintiff has some loathsome disease, or
4) impute unchastity. Floyd Harbor Animal Hosp., v. Doran,2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS
5610, 19 - 20, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 32868(U) (N.Y. Sup.Ct. 2005). Where statements are
libelousper se, damages are presumed and need not be separately proved. Id.
The published statements complained of herein are libelousper sebecause each
tends to injure the Petitioner in his business, trade or profession, as they are aimed at
Petitioners real estate business and many also charge Petitioner with serious crimes,
including fraud, a connection to and concealment of child pornography, racketeering and
being under criminal investigation by federal authorities. Rose Aff. 4-12.
D. Injury to the PetitionerAs noted by the Court inDillon v. City of New York, where a plaintiff is able to
prove defamationper se, injuries flowing from the defamation need not be proven. 261
A.D.2d at 38. As a result, "the law presumes damage to the [libeled] individual's
reputation so that the cause is actionable without proof of special damages.'' Vian v.
Kossman,161 A.D.2d 574, 575, 555 N.Y.S.2d 152, 154 (2d Dep't 1990). Therefore,
Petitioner need not establish damages as an element of [his] defamation cause of action,
and ... failure to do so [would] not require [dismissal]." Id. at 576.
Although no proof of damages is necessary in this case, Petitioner has still
demonstrated such damages in the Rose Affidavit, including damage to his professional
reputation and his business. Rose Aff. 6, 14.
9
8/12/2019 Racketeering Defendant Lawyer Debra Guzov Esq Memorandum of Law in Support of Racketeering Defendant Ad
11/11
mailto:[email protected]