Latrell Sprewell Fouls Out of NY Appellate Court
July 16, 2007
Colleen A. Sorrell- New York
While once an intense player on the basketball court for the New York Knicks, Latrell Sprewell threw an air ball in the New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, which has reversed the lower court’s decision and rejected the pubic figure’s libel lawsuit.
Sprewell sued the New York Post in October 2002 for articles that suggested he had broken his right pinkie finger – which is on his shooting hand – in an altercation a month earlier on his boat in a Milwaukee marina. Sprewell reportedly threw a punch at the boyfriend of an uninvited woman – she drank excessively, vomited on his boat and then refused to leave. The punch apparently missed, and Sprewell struck the wall instead, causing the finger injury. The articles reported that Sprewell did not inform the Knicks of the injury until he showed up for practice a few weeks later.
The articles also reported that Sprewell, through his publicist, stated alternately that he had “no clue” how the injury occurred, and then that it was a result of “frantically pulling on a rope” to gain control of his boat in rough waters. The newspaper also reported that Sprewell told the Knicks’ general manager and coach he slipped and fell on his boat. Berman received information from a news colleague that the injury Sprewell suffered, however, revealed marked similarity to one commonly referred to as a “boxer’s fracture.” A confidential source inside the Knicks organization told Berman he was “on the right track.”
The stories also reported the Knicks organization was concerned with Sprewell’s delay in reporting the injury and that he had continued to lift weights, saying that he didn’t think his hand was injured. The final article reported that the Knicks banned Sprewell from having contact with the team for a period of 16 days, and fined him $250,000. Due to the injury, he missed the first eight games of the season. Without their star guard, the Knicks got off to a 1-7 start to the season.
Sprewell claimed $40 million in damages in his lawsuit for libel against the Post, its reporter and two unnamed sources for the articles. As a public figure, Sprewell would only recover if he could prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the articles were false and were made with “actual malice.” The actual malice standard is satisfied when a plaintiff can prove material was published with knowledge of the falsity or with “reckless disregard” – that is, that the newspaper had a high degree of awareness of probable falsity, or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statements at issue.
Importantly, the appellate court noted that the newspaper carried both the confidential sources’ reports and Sprewell’s denial through his publicist. The appeals court also noted that according to the undisputed record, the Post’s reporter subjectively believed the informants, whose descriptions of portions of the interior of Sprewell’s boat had indicated their reliability. Furthermore, the reporter had spoken with Sprewell’s agent publicist, people within the Knicks organization including the team coach and a public relations representative, three doctors and the Milwaukee Police Department, among others.
The court held that these investigatory efforts demonstrated that the reporter did not deliberately fail to seek confirmatory information or otherwise act with reckless disregard for the truth. As such, there was no triable issue of fact concerning actual malice. Without meeting the standards for asserting a claim for libel, the appeals court held, Sprewell’s cause of action should have been dismissed.
For more information, email Colleen A. Sorrell at colleen.sorrell@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1-888-688-8500.