Malicious Gossip

[Junebug72]

My question involves defamation in the state of: New York. I am a board member of an association. A fellow board member has been spreading malicious gossip due to a failed relationship. These vicious/false rumors include but are not limited to: I have AIDS, I embezzled funds, I spent the embezzled funds on cocaine or plastic surgery, I’m an alcoholic, I’m a racist, that I’m sexually harassing a fellow board member etc etc. I would like her to stop. I understand she is an emotionally stunted adult but she is an adult. An almost 30 year old woman. I do not want money from her. She doesn’t have any and relies on her father to pay her bills. I do want her to stop. My reputation is ruined. I am now a joke. I know I can take no criminal action but what recourse do I have?

[doucar]

Sue her for slander (for money) is the only remedy I am aware of

[Taxing Matters]

I do want her to stop. My reputation is ruined. I am now a joke. I know I can take no criminal action but what recourse do I have?

In New York your only remedy here is to sue for money damages. But doing that might get her to stop to avoid having to keep paying you for the defamatory statements. You could, for example, get a settlement in which she agrees to stop making those statements. Consult a NY attorney who litigates defamation cases for advice. Pursuing this can end up costing you a lot of money in legal fees, so understand that going in.

[flyingron]

In fact, many of these statements arise to the level of per se defamation (that you committed crimes or that you have a dread disease) which means you don't have to show that you were actually monetarily damaged.
Of course, on the other hand, as TM points out that your legal fees may swamp what you can be expected to collect from many individuals. Of course, the other thing is that the lawsuit will possibly bring even more adverse publicity to you to something that might fade away on its own. I'd quote a famous trial lawyer here but certain other boardies harangue me for doing so.

[CONNOR99]

Suing her is not your first or only remedy. Consulting an attorney who specializes in litigating defamation cases is not necessary either, especially if the lady has no money.

Foolish, shallow people are often easily intimidated. You could pay any attorney to write a threatening letter to her. It wouldn't cost that much and would likely be very effective.

IMO, those who flippantly advise others to sue, or think they know the outcome of a trial, have never been in a courtroom as a defendant or a plaintiff.

[flyingron]

Doucar was the only person who advised that, and can assure you that TC and I have been in a courtroom.

[CONNOR99]

Doucar was the only person who advised that, and can assure you that TC and I have been in a courtroom.

Doucar was not the only person and I did not say "have been in a courtroom."

[Taxing Matters]

Suing her is not your first or only remedy. Consulting an attorney who specializes in litigating defamation cases is not necessary either, especially if the lady has no money.

The first consultation with most tort litigation attorneys is free. So all she has to lose by doing the consultation I suggested is a bit of her time.

Foolish, shallow people are often easily intimidated. You could pay any attorney to write a threatening letter to her. It wouldn't cost that much and would likely be very effective.

It might help to do that, it might not. If I were the attorney for her I would certainly try that. And the attorney she consults likely would start with that as well.

IMO, those who flippantly advise others to sue, or think they know the outcome of a trial, have never been in a courtroom as a defendant or a plaintiff.

No one here "flippantly" advised her of anything. And one need not be a plaintiff or defendant to understand what is involved in trial. I litigate cases for my clients and as a result do have a good idea of what is involved, and what my clients go through over the course of litigation. I am certainly mindful of the costs clients incur and try to ensure they understand what they may end up spending so they can make an informed decision about what to do, and I pointedly mentioned to the OP here to ensure she gets that information from the attorney she consults as well.

[CONNOR99]

The first consultation with most tort litigation attorneys is free. So all she has to lose by doing the consultation I suggested is a bit of her time.


It might help to do that, it might not. If I were the attorney for her I would certainly try that. And the attorney she consults likely would start with that as well.

No one here "flippantly" advised her of anything. And one need not be a plaintiff or defendant to understand what is involved in trial. I litigate cases for my clients and as a result do have a good idea of what is involved, and what my clients go through over the course of litigation. I am certainly mindful of the costs clients incur and try to ensure they understand what they may end up spending so they can make an informed decision about what to do, and I pointedly mentioned to the OP here to ensure she gets that information from the attorney she consults as well.

Flippant or not, saying that suing is an "only remedy" was poor advice. "Consulting a NY attorney who litigates defamation cases" is also premature.

But you have a right to your opinion, as do I.

[pg1067]

what recourse do I have?

Your recourse is to sue. You could, of course, preface that with a demand letter from an attorney, but that seems to patently obvious as to go without saying.

Suing her is not your first or only remedy. Consulting an attorney who specializes in litigating defamation cases is not necessary either, especially if the lady has no money.

Foolish, shallow people are often easily intimidated. You could pay any attorney to write a threatening letter to her. It wouldn't cost that much and would likely be very effective.

Are you suggesting that the OP should seek an attorney other than a litigation attorney to write the threatening letter? What factual basis exists for your conclusion that sending such a letter "would likely be very effective"?

More importantly, is your only quibble with the suggestion that the OP consult with a lawyer who litigates defamation cases that the OP could, instead, consult with a lawyer who lacks subject matter expertise? Other than suing or sending a threatening letter (either of which is going to require some sort of consultation), do you have any suggestions of remedies that the OP might have?

IMO, those who flippantly advise others to sue, or think they know the outcome of a trial, have never been in a courtroom as a defendant or a plaintiff.

That's not an opinion; it's ignorant speculation about a factual matter.