FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/ :14 PM INDEX NO /2016

Transcription

1 FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10 /17 / INDEX : 41 NO /2016 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/ /02/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x JAMES SELLECK, Index No.: Plaintiff, Date Purchased: against- SUMMONS NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, L.P., COUNTY OF NEW YORK as place of ROCCO PARASCONDOLA, personally and professionally, trial DAN GOOD, personally and professionally, VICTORIA BEKIEMPIS, personally and professionally, The basis of the venue is principal place GRAHAM RAYMAN, personally and professionally, and of business of Defendant New York JOHN DOES 1-20, Daily News, L.P x To the above named Defendant(s): Defendant(s).. YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint, is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complaint if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: New York, New York October 14, 2016 GERARD LAW FIRM PIERCE & KWOK LLP By: David J. Gerard, Esq. Aaron H. Pierce, Esq. Attorney(s) for Plaintiff Attorney(s) for Plaintiff 1731 East 53rd Street 253 Church St., Suite 4A Brooklyn, NY New York, NY (917) djg@djglawnyc.com By: (212) aaron.pierce@piercekwok.com TO: New York Daily News, L.P., 4 New York Plaza, New York, New York, Rocco Parascondola, 4 New York Plaza, New York, New York, Dan Good, 4 New York Plaza, New York, New York, Victoria Bekiempis, 4 New York Plaza, New York, New York, Graham Rayman, 4 New York Plaza, New York, New York, of 17

2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x '-x Index No.: JAMES SELLECK, Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND -against- JURY DEMAND NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, L.P., ROCCO PARASCONDOLA, personally and professionally, DAN GOOD, personally and professionally, VICTORIA BEKIEMPIS, personally and professionally, GRAHAM RAYMAN, personally and professionally, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendant( s ) X Plaintiff, James Selleck ("Selleck" or "Plaintiff"), by and through its attorneys, Pierce & Kwok LLP and the Gerard Law Firm, for its Verified Complaint against defendants, New York (" Daily News, L.P., ("Daily News" News"), (" Good" Rocco Parascondola ("Parascondola"), Dan Good ("Good"), (" Victoria Bekiempis ("Bekiempis"), Graham Ryman ("Ryman") and John Does 1-20 ("John Does" "Defendants" Does"), in their personal and professional capacities (collectively, the "Defendants"), hereby alleges the following: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action seeking declaratory and equitable relief, as well as for monetary damages to redress acts of defamation, defamation per se, libel and libel per se committed by Defendants against James Selleck. 2. Defendants' unlawful conduct was knowing, malicious, willful and wanton and/or showed a reckless disregard for the Mr. Selleck's rights, which has caused, and continues to cause Mr. Selleck, permanent harm to his professional and personal reputations, as 2 of 17

3 well as disgrace, humiliation and shame throughout the world, and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 3. This case is about acts of defamation and libel per se committed by the Daily News, and four of its reporters against a highly decorated retired police Lieutenant. Specifically, in a news article published in both the hardcopy and online editions of the Daily News on June 21, 2016, Defendants falsely, maliciously and with reckless disregard for the truth, identified a photograph of James Selleck, a retired Lieutenant with the New York Police Department ("NYPD") as that of James Grant, a deputy inspector with the NYPD, who was recently arrested as part of a federal corruption case targeting the NYPD. Defendants ran Mr. Selleck's image as part of a two-page story on the case on pages 10 and 11 of the paper. Mr. Selleck's image, falsely identifying him as James Grant, is run in the center of page 11, takes up one third of the horizontal length of the page and more than one half of the vertical length, and is run directly above large, bold-font type proclaiming "N.Y.'s SLEAZIEST" and "Hookers Part of Package for "Cops on Call'. Further, in falsely identifying James Selleck's image, Defendants, also used numerous inflammatory and demeaning language in relaying the alleged facts of the case, using the statement "This scandalous blight on the Police Department must be completely eradicated" and referring to "hookers" and using other negative and inflammatory language. By improperly and falsely utilizing Mr. Selleck's image in connection with this case, and by using such language in connection with the case, Defendants have subjected James Selleck to humiliation, scorn and ridicule throughout the world by falsely portraying him as a corrupt cop. Further, Mr. Selleck, who owns a kickboxing 3 of 17

4 gym that caters to a primarily female clientele, has been damaged in both his business and his professional reputation. Mr. Selleck is also married with two daughters. By falsely holding Mr. Selleck's image out to the world as that of a man who consorted with prostitutes and was unfaithful, Defendants have caused Mr. Selleck undue harm in both his marriage and his relationship with his daughters. The fact that Defendants used a photograph of Mr. Selleck to falsely identify him as James Grant, creates an impression in the mind of even the most diligent person that makes it virtually impossible for Mr. Selleck to escape the association, as the improper connection is made from a distance without opportunity for Mr. Selleck to interact, introduce himself, or take any action to rectify the misconception. Defendants have tarnished Mr. Selleck's many years of faithful service to the people of New York and the NYPD, tarnished his personal and professional reputation and damaged his business, and cause harm to him as a father and a husband, and Defendants actions constitute defamation and libel per se. PARTIES 4. James Selleck is a resident of Staten Island, New York. After a distinguished career, he retired from the NYPD in January 2012 as a Lieutenant. He is married with two daughters, and currently is an partner in the CKO Kickboxing Gym franchise located in the Tottenville section of Staten Island. 5. New York Daily News, L.P., publishes one of the most influential newspapers in the country, with a daily circulation of more 500,000. The paper publishes both a hard copy as well as an online edition, allowing it to reach an international audience, although its primary impact is in New York City. Founded in 1919, its headquarters is located at 4 New York Plaza, New York, New York. 4 of 17

5 6. Rocco Parascondola is, and was at all relevant times herein, a reporter and/or photographer with the Daily News, who, upon information and belief, currently resides in the State of New York. 7. Dan Good is, and was at all relevant times herein, a reporter and/or photographer with the Daily News, who, upon information and belief, currently resides in the State of New York. 8. Victoria Bekiempis is, and was at all relevant times herein, a reporter and/or photographer with the Daily News, who, upon information and belief, currently resides in the State of New York. 9. Graham Ryman is, and was at all relevant times herein, a reporter and/or photographer with the Daily News, who, upon information and belief, currently resides in the State of New York. 10. John Does 1-20 are, upon information and belief, employees of the Daily News who had an obligation as part of their employment to oversee the accuracy of, or otherwise factcheck, the article in question. JURIS-DICTION_AND VENUE 11. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant New York Daily News, L.P., pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") section 301 in that it is a domestic Limited Partnership existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York and has its principal place of business located at 4 New York Plaza, New York, New York, This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants Rocco Parascondola, Dan Good, Victoria Bekiempis, Graham Ryman, and John Does 1-20 pursuant to CPLR 301 in that they are 5 of 17

6 employees of the Daily News and work in the State of New York, and upon information and belief, are residents of the State of New York. 13. Venue is appropriate pursuant to Section 503 of the CPLR because the principal place of the Daily News, L.P. is New York County. FACTUALBACKGROUND 14. James Selleck is a private citizen and a resident of Staten Island, New York. He is currently married and has two daughters, aged 17 and On or about January 2012, Mr. Selleck retired from the NYPD having achieved the rank of Lieutenant, and having earned many medals and commendations for his long and distinguished service to the people of New York. 16. On or about May 2012, Mr. Selleck became a part owner in a CKO Kickboxing Gym ("CKO"), in the Tottenville section of Staten Island. 17. CKO Kickboxing is a franchise boasting approximately 40 locations, primarily located throughout the New York and New Jersey area. 18. CKO Kickboxing caters primarily to a female clientele, offering a female-friendly training environment as well as classed dedicated solely to women. 19. Upon information and belief, very few if any of the clientele at CKO knows Mr. Selleck's last name, and he is either identified visually, as "Jimmy", or more frequently as "Jimmy the Cop". 20. Mr. Selleck enjoys an upstanding reputation at CKO amongst the clientele and employees, and has had an excellent and long-time relationship with both the other owners of this particular CKO as well as the principal owner of the CKO franchises. 6 of 17

7 21. Mr. Selleck enjoys a close relationship with the NYPD, including current and retired officers, and is a member of several police alumni associations and organizations. 22. On or about June 21, 2016, James Selleck began receiving numerous text messages, s and phone calls from friends and family, concerning a photograph of him in the Daily News. 23. Prior to receiving these messages, Mr. Selleck had no contact with the Daily News. 24. As Mr. Selleck would later discover, on or about June 21, 2016 Defendants published a news story on pages 10 and 11 of the Daily News, entitled "N.Y.'s SLEAZIEST" (the "Article" "Article"). 25. The Article published by Defendants contained a large-scale photograph of Plaintiff, centrally placed, identifying James Selleck as James Grant, a deputy inspector with the NYPD arrested on charges of bribery, involvement with prostitutes, corruption and other criminal activities. A true and correct copy of the article is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 26. In the Article, Defendants depicted James Grant as a dishonorable police officer who Grant' abused his power for personal gain, and made numerous references to James Grant's infidelity and his use of prostitutes. 27. In connection with the allegations, the Defendants used inflammatory and derogatory language, referring to James Grant as, amongst other negative terms, a "scourge" of the NYPD. 28. James Selleck is not James Grant. 29. James Selleck is a private citizen. 7 of 17

8 30. James Selleck has not inserted himself into the controversy surrounding the allegations against James Grant in any manner that would make him a public figure or a limited public figure. 31. James Selleck is distinctively physical different from James Grant, including substantial size difference, different facial structure, different hair color, and other distinguishing characteristics. 32. Prior to the publication of the Article, articles in both hard copy and online had been running on the probe into James Grant's activities since, upon information and belief, approximately April Upon information and belief, no other news source has misidentified Plaintiff as James Grant. 34. Since Mr. Grant's arrest on or about June 20, 2016, multiple other news sources have run articles about the case, including articles published on June 21, Upon information and belief, none of those articles misidentified Plaintiff as James Grant. 36. Even cursory research into the identification of the individual in the photograph would have revealed that it is James Selleck, not James Grant. 37. Upon information and belief, both industry standard as well as the Daily News' specific protocols require that all information, including photographs, undergo a rigorous factchecking process to determine its accuracy prior to publication. 38. It is clear here that these protocols were not followed in this case, as even cursory research into the identification of the individual in the photograph would have revealed that it is James Selleck, not James Grant. 8 of 17

9 39. In fact, highlighting the recklessness, maliciousness, and egregiousness of Defendants actions, and failure to perform even the most basic check for accuracy, the Daily News has been running articles on James Grant, using a correct photograph, since at least May 24, Defendants knew, or should have known, that purporting that the image of James Selleck was that of James Grant was false before it was published. 41. By connecting James Selleck's image with the article detailing the alleged crimes of James Grant, Defendants have falsely created the impression in the public eye that James Selleck is a corrupt cop and a criminal. 42. By using Mr. Selleck's image to identify him as James Grant, Defendants have made it impossible for Mr. Selleck to correct the mistake, as the public impression and connection is made visually, from a distance, and without any opportunity by Mr. Selleck to interact with any individual who is making such a misidentification. 43. This false impression of Plaintiff as a corrupt cop and a criminal, and the damage to his personal and professional reputation, his marriage and family life, and his present business and future business ventures, is perpetual, unquantifiable and uncorrectable. 44. Compounding Defendants' error, Mr. Selleck shares the same first name with Mr. Grant, as well as the same general occupation of police officer. The likelihood that any reasonable, or even unusually diligent, member of the public would be able to recognize or confirm that the image associated with the Article (a cop named James or Jimmy), is a mistake approaches nil. 45. The Daily News did admit its error and printed a retraction in the June 22, 2016 edition of the Daily News. 9 of 17

10 46. However, while the Article was a two-page spread and featured an image of Mr. Selleck that is approximately one-third the horizontal width of the page, and more than one-half the vertical length of the page, centrally placed, and above the bold font proclaiming "SLEAZIEST", the retraction is buried on Page 28 with the obituaries. 47. The likelihood that this nominal retraction will mitigate the substantial current and future harm to Mr. Selleck approaches zero. 48. James Selleck has and will be harmed in unquantifiable and unidentifiable ways, due to the circumstances and insidiousness of Defendants' actions. 49. However, James Selleck has also suffered actual and immediate harm as well. 50. Mr. Selleck enjoyed an income of approximately $45,000 annually from this ownership interest in CKO. 51. Mr. Selleck is in excellent health, enjoyed owning the CKO, and was both able and willing to continue owning the CKO for decades to come. 52. Mr. Selleck's business partners, citing the negative publicity surrounding the Article, have bought out Mr. Selleck's interest in CKO for only $70,000, a price that can only be considered "rock bottom", and which does not even remotely reflect the goodwill or future expected earnings of Mr. Selleck's ownership interest, which are likely in the hundreds of thousands. 53. Following the Article, client cancellations increased at CKO substantially beyond other prior comparable time periods. 54. Mr. Selleck's wife and daughters, who are of an age to have read the Article and to understand the allegations and implications, are distraught at the damage to Mr. 10 of 17

11 family' Selleck's, and by extension the entire Selleck family's, reputation, especially by the allegations regarding prostitution and infidelity. 55. Plaintiff himself saw the Article and was appalled to have his image linked to such unsavory allegations. 56. The reality is that James Selleck served the people of New York with distinction, integrity and honor throughout his career including receiving a pin to commemorate his service during September 11th 11'", 2001 and numerous other medals and commendations. 57. James Selleck has spent a substantial portion of his adult life in service of this city and its people, and deserves to be respected and known for what he is, a distinguished retired police officer, one of the "good guys". 58. Instead, due to Defendants' egregious and tortious actions, he is forever to be known as a disgraced and corrupt cop. 59. Defendants' intentional and/or reckless publishing of Plaintiff's image in association with the Article is defamation per se and libel per se, it has resulted in impairment of his good name, resulted in embarrassment, humiliation, harm to his business reputation and his present and future business ventures, his service record and integrity, his personal and family life, and has exposed him to public ridicule. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief) 60. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 13 as if set forth at length herein. 11 of 17

12 61. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants' willful and malicious defamatory publication of the Article containing the image of Plaintiff constitute libel per se for which they are answerable for damages under New York State Law. 62. That this Court order Defendant to immediately remove any image of Plaintiff linking him to the Article or any of the unsavory allegations from all web-sites under their control. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation and Libel Per Se) 63. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 16 as if set forth at length herein. 64. Defendants published defamatory statements about the Plaintiff. Specifically, these defamatory statements included a false assertion that Plaintiff was arrested for corruption, bribery and partaking in prostitution whilst serving as a Police Officer. 65. Defendant published these defamatory statements to the public through hardcopy editions of the New York Daily News on June 21, These defamatory statements were untrue and defamatory in that they falsely reported the Plaintiff's character and actions, and Defendants knew, or should have known that such statements were false. 67. Defendant published these false and defamatory statements with malice. 68. Defendant published these false and defamatory statements with knowledge of their falsity and/or with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of these statements. 12 of 17

13 69. These statements constitute defamation and/or libel per se because they falsely portray the plaintiff as a man who has been unfaithful to his spouse by engaging in acts of a sexual nature with women for money. 70. These statements constitute defamation and/or libel per se because they falsely impugn the Plaintiff's honesty, trustworthiness, dependability, and professional fitness and abilities by falsely charging him with engaging in criminal conduct and/or other conduct that would tend to injure the Plaintiff in his trade or business, namely as an owner of a kickboxing gym with a focus on female clientele. 71. These false and defamatory statements have caused the Plaintiff embarrassment, humiliation and emotional injury. 72. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for defamation. 73. Defendant knew, or should have known, of the falsity of such statements made in the hardcopy edition of the New York Daily News on June 21, As a result of said defamation, the Plaintiff continues to suffer from humiliation, loss of standing in the community, loss of self-esteem, public disgrace and severe and extreme emotional distress. 75. The defamatory acts committed against the Plaintiff by Defendant were intentional, willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and were motivated, in part, by a desire to sell newspapers without regard for the truth or the Plaintiff's well-being and were based on a lack of concern and ill-will towards the Plaintiff and/or a deliberate or reckless disregard for his rights, for which the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages. 13 of 17

14 76. The Plaintiff has suffered harm as a result of the defamatory statements including, but not limited to, reputational harm, emotional distress and mental anguish and the statements were defamatory per se. 77. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff is entitled to monetary and punitive damages. DEMAND FOR JURY Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues involved herein pursuant to NY CPLR PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendant, as follows: (1) A declaratory judgment that the actions, conduct and practices of the Defendant complained of herein were defamatory and intentionally or recklessly caused the Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress; (2) An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, however in no case less than $1,500,000.00, plus prejudgment interest, to compensate the Plaintiff for all monetary and/or economic harm; (3) An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, however in no case less than $1,500,000.00, plus prejudgment interest, to compensate the Plaintiff for harm to his professional and personal reputations; (4) An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, however in no case less than $1,500,000.00, plus prejudgment interest, to compensate the Plaintiff for all non- 14 of 17

15 monetary and/or compensatory harm, including but not limited to, compensation for his mental anguish; (5) An award of damages for any and all other monetary and/or non-monetary losses suffered by the Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest; (6) An award of punitive damages; (7) An award of costs that the Plaintiff has incurred in this action, as well as Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees to the fullest extent permitted by law; and (8) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York October 14, 2016 GERARD LAW FIRM PIERCE 0 KWOK LLP By: David J. Gerard, Esq. Aaron H. Pierce, Esq. By: Attorney(s) for Plaintiff Attorney(s)for Plaintiff 53rd 1731 East street 253 Church St., Suite 4A Brooklyn, NY New York, NY (917) (212) djg@djglawnyc.com aaron.pierce@piercekwok.com 15 of 17

16 ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: AARON H. PIERCE, an attorney at law duly admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, affirms under the penalties of perjury as follows: 1. I am the attorney for the Plaintiff in the above captioned action. 2. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and the contents thereof which are true to my knowledge, except as to those matters I believe it to be true. 3. The reason this verification is made by me and not by my client is because my client was unavailable at the time of filing. 4. The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are as follows: information provided by my client. 5. Pursuant to 22NYCRR , I hereby certify that upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in the annexed document are not frivolous. I affirm that the foregoing statements are true, under penalty of perjury. Dated: New York, New York October 14, 2016 PIERCE & KWOK LLP By: Aaron H. Pierce, Esq. Attorney(s) for Plaintiff James Selleck 253 Church St., Suite 4A New York, NY (212) aaron.pierce@piercekwok.com 16 of 17

17 ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF KINGS ) ) ss.: DAVID J. GERARD, an attorney at law duly admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, affirms under the penalties of perjury as follows: 1. I am the attorney for the Plaintiff in the above captioned action. 2. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and the contents thereof which are true to my knowledge, except as to those matters I believe it to be true. 3. The reason this verification is made by me and not by my client is because my client was unavailable at the time of filing. 4. The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are as follows: information provided by my client. 5. Pursuant to 22NYCRR , I hereby certify that upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in the annexed document are not frivolous. I affirm that the foregoing statements are true, under penalty of perjury. Dated: New York, New York October 14, 2016 GERARD LAW FIRM By: David J. Gerard, Esq. Attorney(s)forPlaintiff 53rd 1731 East Street Brooklyn, NY (917) djg@djglawnyc.com 17 of 17