Sheridan v Carter

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Sheridan v Carter 2006 NY Slip Op 30826(U) December 4, 2006 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 18320/05 Judge: Anthony L. Parga Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] • OiJ SHORT FORM ORDER • • SUPREME COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK- NASSAU COUNTY Present: HON. ANTHONY L. PARGA .Justice ------------·- ·---------------------·------------------X PA RT I5 FONTAINE SHERIDAN and DONALD SHERIDAN, INDEX NO. 18320/05 • e xxx Plaintiffs, -against- MOTION DATE: 10/10106 SEQUENCE NO. 006, 007 CINDY CARTER, DOMESTIC WORKERS UNITED and STAND UP MINISTRY, Defendants. ~----------------------------------------------------------)( • e • Notice of ivlotion, Affs. & Exs .............................................................................. _I t '.otice of Cross-Motion, A ffs. & Exs ...................................................................... £__ 2-Aftirmations rn Opposition & Exs ........................................................................ 3-4 2-Reply Affinnations & Exs ....................................................................................... 5-6 Defendant's J\.temorandum of Law ...........................................................................l__ Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that the motion by plaintiffs seeking leave to reargue and renew the motion which resulted in the decision of this Court dated June 30, 2006 is denied. • A motion for leave to renew must be supported by new or additional facts which, although in existence at the timt! of the prior motion, were not known lo the party seeking renewal. Here, the plaintiffs did not submit any justification for failing • to present facts known to them at the time of the original motion. and improperly Ji) !I:© LE: IlW LC 1ffi • I DEC 0 8 2006 J1JJ BY: •••••••••••••••••••• [* 2] • • ul 'l relied on facts not in cxis~encc al the time of the original motion (see CPLR 2221 [eJ [2J, .Johnson v. i\larquez, 2 A.D.Jd 786, (211J Dept., 2003)). Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Court misunderstood the facts or • • misapplied the controlling princ:iples of law (Foley v. Roche, 68 AD2d 558 [I st Dept. 1979]; Gellert & Rodner v. Gem Cmty. Mgmt., 20 AD3d 388 [2nd Dept. 2005))). The cross-motion by defendant Stand Up Ministry for an order dismissing the action pursuant to CPLR 32 l l(a)(7) is granted. ln this action plaintiffs seek damages from all defendants for defamation per • se and a pcm1ane11t injunction against defendants further slandering plaintiffs' names and characters. Plaintiffs m January 2003 hired defendant Cindy Carter through an employment agency to work in their home as a child care provider for plaintiffs' three 'hildren. In 2005, the relationship deteriorated and a domestic dispute resulled in plaintiff Fontaine Sheridan's plea of guilty to a criminal harassment charge • (PL§240.26( l )). After the criminal case was concluded, defendant Domestic Workers United on behalf of defendant Cindy Carter wrote to plaintiffs with demands for an apology and money in conne-ction with the acrimonious employer-employee relationship. Upon plaintiffs' rejection of the demands, defendant Domestic \\'orkers United contacted newspapers which resulted in at least 5 newspaper articles with photographs of plaintiffs and their children. The newspaper articles described the • alleged mistreatment of defendant Cindy Carter by plaintiffs during her employment. Subsequent to the publication of these articles, de fondant Stand Up Minist1y along with defendant Domestic \iVorkers Unitt:d began protesting and picketing in front of • • plaintiff's home and plaintiff Donald Sheridan's place of bL1siness in Manhattan . [* 3] • ..... Sheridan y. C.a.rtcr • lnd~x 013 3_, No. 18320/05 The third and fourth causes of action against movant Stand Up Ministries allege that Stand Up Ministries distributed a flyer and posted on their website false • and Jefamatory statements and picketed outside plaintiffs' horne and place of business. The Court has examined the Complaint in a manner consistent with • uncontested law. "To determine whether u pleuding is sufficient to withstand a challenge under CPLR 3'..: 11 [a][7], the court must consider whether the pleading, taken as a whole, faHs to state a cause of action. • Looseness, verbosity and excursiveness, must be overlooked on such motion if any cause of action can be spelled out from the four corners of the pleading" (Foley v. D'Agostino, 21 AD2d 60 (1st Dept., 1964 )). • ·rt is uncontested that speech in constitutionally protected and privileged when the subject constitutes a public concem. The question before the Court is whether an issue of public concern is • pr'!sented in this case. There are no empiracal rules for determining when public statements involve matter of genuine public concern. It could be argued that movant's allocation of resources consistent with its mission statement is an indication that the • employment conditions of domestic workers is a public interest. However, a matter is not of public concern if it involves an issue directed at a limited audience (Chapadeau v. Utica Observer-Dispatch, Inc., 38 NY 19fi (1975)). • Under the circumstances, it is undisputed that t~.e events that precipitated detendants' activities are a matter of public record. The criminal charges and subsequent plea were "current event" news items in print and on television • • independent of defendant Domestic Workers United efforts. It is not unreasonable to find the underlying issues to be of genuine public concern. Hence, the Cornplr.int [* 4] • -· Sheridilfl v. Carter • Index No. ~=3.,,,20"""'/0='i'"- OlJ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _4_,_~ must articulale malice or reckless disregard for the truth with particularity (CPLR 3126(a)). The Complaint and opposition to this motion contain conclusory ~tatements as • to the truth of defendants' statements and defendants' intent in their publication, thus defendant Stand Up Ministries' motion is granted. • The equitable relief of a preliminary injunction pending tht.· outcome of this litigation that defendants shall not stage any protests at the home of plaintiffs located at 112 Whitewood Drive, Massapequa Park, N. Y. granted by the order of the • undersigned dated March 16, 2006 is vacated . Dated: December 4, 2006 . • • • • • •

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.