defamation claim in New Jersey

2025As the Court in G.D. noted, when disposing of a false light claim, it is "essentially the same" as a defamation claim, "[t]ruth may be personally embarrassing and offensive to some, but it remains a defense [to both claims]." 205 N.J. at 308 .

2024Under the first element necessary to prevail on a defamation claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate the publisher "made a false and defamatory statement." G.D. v. Kenny, 205 N.J. 275, 292-93 (2011).

2026"The elements of a defamation claim in New Jersey are (1) 'the assertion of a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) the unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party; and (3) fault amounting at least to negligence by the publisher.'" Hyman v. Rosenbaum Yeshiva of N. Jersey, 258 N.J. 208 , 236-37 (2024) (Patterson, J., concurring) (quoting Leang v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ., 198 N.J. 557, 585 (2009)).

2025"The elements of a defamation claim in New Jersey are (1) 'the assertion of a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) the unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party; and (3) fault amounting at least to negligence by the publisher.'" Hyman v. Rosenbaum Yeshiva of N. Jersey, 258 N.J. 208 , 236 (2024) (Patterson, J., concurring) (quoting Leang v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ., 198 N.J. 557, 585 (2009)).

2025The elements of a defamation claim are "(1) the assertion of a false and A-3145-23 10 defamatory statement concerning another; (2) the unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party; and (3) fault amounting at least to negligence by the publisher." DeAngelis v. Hill, 180 N.J. 1, 12-13 (2004).

2025Inst. 1977).] A-0409-23 14 "A false light claim against a public official [is] similar to a defamation claim [in that they both] utilize[] the actual malice standard." DeAngelis v. Hill, 180 N.J. 1, 19 (2004).

2020Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim, Ward v. Zelikovsky, 136 N.J. 516, 530 (1994), and "may be asserted as a defense even when a statement is not perfectly accurate." G.D. v. Kenny, 205 N.J. 275, 293 (2011).

1999The need for proof of damages to establish a defamation claim was also explained by Judge Skillman in his dissent in Ward v. Zelikovsky, 263 N.J.Super. 497, 525 , 623 A. 2d 285 (App.Div.1993), rev'd [3] 136 N.J. 516 , 643 A. 2d 972 (1994) (citations omitted): Most significantly, the Supreme Court of New Jersey has criticized the "presumed damages" doctrine and suggested that proof of actual damages may be required in all defamation actions....

2025G.D., 205 N.J. at 293 (quoting Ward v. Zelikovsky, 136 N.J. 516, 530 (1994)); see also Senna v. Florimont, 196 N.J. 469, 496 (2008) ("[N]o business owner will ever be liable for the truth he tells about a rival.").

2025In defamation cases, an "actual-malice standard for liability purposes" applies "when the alleged defamatory statement concerns a public figure or a public official or involves a matter of public concern." W.J.A. v. D.A., 210 N.J. 229, 244 (2012) (quoting Senna v. Florimont, 196 N.J. 469, 496 (2008)).

2023In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279 (1964), the United States Supreme Court ruled that to establish a defamation claim against a public figure, the public figure "must prove with convincing clarity that the defamatory statements were published by the defendant with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of whether they were true or false." Lawrence v. Bauer Pub. & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466-67 (1982) (citing New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279 ).

2023In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279 (1964), the United States Supreme Court ruled that to establish a defamation claim against a public figure, the public figure "must prove with convincing clarity that the defamatory statements were published by the defendant with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of whether they were true or false." Lawrence v. Bauer Pub. & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466-67 (1982) (citing New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279 ).

2012Likewise, in the context of a traditional defamation claim, we have commented that the “bald assertion by the publisher that he believes in the truth of the statement may not be sufficient.” Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publ’g Co., 104 N.J. 125, 150 , 516 A.2d 220 (1986).

2012Likewise, in the context of a traditional defamation claim, we have commented that the “bald assertion by the publisher that he believes in the truth of the statement may not be sufficient.” Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publ’g Co., 104 N.J. 125, 150 , 516 A.2d 220 (1986).

2001Piper v. Scher, 221 N.J.Super. 54, 60 , 533 A. 2d 974 (App.Div. 1987) (observing that defendant was entitled to dismissal of a defamation claim because the plaintiff based it "solely upon the criminal complaints filed against her which were absolutely privileged") (citing Lone v. Brown, 199 N.J.Super. 420, 426 , 489 A. 2d 1192 (App.Div.1985)); see also Rainier's Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc., 19 N.J. 552, 558 , 117 A. 2d 889 (1955); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 587 (1977).

2001Piper v. Scher, 221 N.J.Super. 54, 60 , 533 A. 2d 974 (App.Div. 1987) (observing that defendant was entitled to dismissal of a defamation claim because the plaintiff based it "solely upon the criminal complaints filed against her which were absolutely privileged") (citing Lone v. Brown, 199 N.J.Super. 420, 426 , 489 A. 2d 1192 (App.Div.1985)); see also Rainier's Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc., 19 N.J. 552, 558 , 117 A. 2d 889 (1955); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 587 (1977).

2026To prove this state of mind, a plaintiff A- 3223-23 20 generally will need to depose not only the defendant but also any other person who the defendant claims to have been a source of the alleged false information contained in the defamatory statement. [ 323 N.J.

2026To prove this state of mind, a plaintiff A- 3223-23 20 generally will need to depose not only the defendant but also any other person who the defendant claims to have been a source of the alleged false information contained in the defamatory statement. [ 323 N.J.

2025Likewise, to prove defamation, a plaintiff must demonstrate (a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (b) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication. [Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558.] To satisfy the first element of a defamation claim, a defendant must make a defamatory statement about the plaintiff, which is a statement that is “false and ‘injurious to the reputation

2025Likewise, to prove defamation, a plaintiff must demonstrate (a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (b) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication. [Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558.] To satisfy the first element of a defamation claim, a defendant must make a defamatory statement about the plaintiff, which is a statement that is “false and ‘injurious to the reputation

2025Likewise, to prove defamation, a plaintiff must demonstrate (a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (b) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication. [Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558.] To satisfy the first element of a defamation claim, a defendant must make a defamatory statement about the plaintiff, which is a statement that is “false and ‘injurious to the reputation

2025Likewise, to prove defamation, a plaintiff must demonstrate (a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (b) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication. [Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558.] To satisfy the first element of a defamation claim, a defendant must make a defamatory statement about the plaintiff, which is a statement that is “false and ‘injurious to the reputation

2025In defamation cases, an "actual-malice standard for liability purposes" applies "when the alleged defamatory statement concerns a public figure or a public official or involves a matter of public concern." W.J.A. v. D.A., 210 N.J. 229, 244 (2012) (quoting Senna v. Florimont, 196 N.J. 469, 496 (2008)).

2018W.J.A. v. D.A., 210 N.J. 229 , 238 (2012).

2023In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279 (1964), the United States Supreme Court ruled that to establish a defamation claim against a public figure, the public figure "must prove with convincing clarity that the defamatory statements were published by the defendant with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of whether they were true or false." Lawrence v. Bauer Pub. & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466-67 (1982) (citing New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279 ).

2004First, in Lawrence, supra, the plaintiffs were officers of a local taxpayers association that opposed a municipal appropriation to construct a new firehouse. 89 N.J. at 455, 446 A.2d at 470-71 .

2008Otherwise it extends to witnesses, parties and their representatives, as well as other participants in such proceedings, id. at 214-15 , 661 A. 2d 284 , and insulates the defamer not only from a defamation action but, as well, from other related tort counts whose gravamen is the same as that *695 of the defamation claim.

2008Otherwise it extends to witnesses, parties and their representatives, as well as other participants in such proceedings, id. at 214-15 , 661 A. 2d 284 , and insulates the defamer not only from a defamation action but, as well, from other related tort counts whose gravamen is the same as that *695 of the defamation claim.

2025See Weidman, 254 N.E.3d at 11 (“because the alleged conduct underlying the [intentional infliction of emotional distress] claim and the false-light-invasion-of-privacy claim is virtually identical to the alleged conduct underlying the defamation claim, the applicable statute of limitations” is the same); see also Gashgai, 703 F.2d at 12-13 (because the “plaintiff’s injury” in a false light action “in many respects closely parallel[s that] which would normally be found in a defamation action,” false light is “most analogous” to defamation and the statute of limitations for defamation controls (

2025See Weidman, 254 N.E.3d at 11 (“because the alleged conduct underlying the [intentional infliction of emotional distress] claim and the false-light-invasion-of-privacy claim is virtually identical to the alleged conduct underlying the defamation claim, the applicable statute of limitations” is the same); see also Gashgai, 703 F.2d at 12-13 (because the “plaintiff’s injury” in a false light action “in many respects closely parallel[s that] which would normally be found in a defamation action,” false light is “most analogous” to defamation and the statute of limitations for defamation controls (

2025Despite a voluminous record, plaintiffs' argument relies entirely on conclusory allegations, offering no concrete evidence ascertained from any of the numerous certifications and depositions that were conducted over the lengthy course of this case. "[B]are conclusions in the pleadings[,] without factual support in tendered affidavits, will not defeat a meritorious application for summary judgment." Brae Asset Fund, L.P. v. Newman, 327 N.J.

2025It is A-2791-24 22 well-settled that "[i]t is not the label placed on [a cause of action] that is pivotal but the nature of the legal inquiry." Couri v. Gardner, 173 N.J. 328, 340 (2002).

2024"Our law of defamation is grounded on the principle that people should be free 'to enjoy their reputations unimpaired by false and defamatory attacks.'" Fees v. Trow, 105 N.J. 330, 336 (1987) (quoting Swede v. Passaic Daily News, 30 N.J. 320, 331 (1959)).

2024This Court observed that in a challenge to an action against a religious institution based on the First Amendment, “the threshold inquiry is whether the defamation and other tort claims by a seminary’s former dean against her former employer that were based on statements made by the employer about the seminary’s prior termination of the dean and “the reasons and procedure for her final termination”); Ind. Area Found. of United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Snyder, 953 N.E.2d 1174, 1180 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (barring a former pastor’s defamation claim based on statements to mental health providers a

2024This Court observed that in a challenge to an action against a religious institution based on the First Amendment, “the threshold inquiry is whether the defamation and other tort claims by a seminary’s former dean against her former employer that were based on statements made by the employer about the seminary’s prior termination of the dean and “the reasons and procedure for her final termination”); Ind. Area Found. of United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Snyder, 953 N.E.2d 1174, 1180 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (barring a former pastor’s defamation claim based on statements to mental health providers a