Obi v. Amoa

58 Misc.3d 446

63 N.Y.S.3d 208

Wilson OBI, Plaintiff,

v.Kwesi AMOA, Shermaine Austin, William Harris, Wilbert Hope, John Gibbs, and Leon Johnson, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Kings County, New York.

Aug. 21, 2017.

A. Joyce Furfero, Esq., Scarsdale, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Cheryl M. Rameau, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, State of New York Office of the Attorney General, New York, Attorney for Defendant.

KATHERINE A. LEVINE, J.

Plaintiff Wilson C. Obi ("plaintiff" or "Obi") originally brought an action against the six above named defendants seeking damages for a number of torts, including defamation, intentional and negligent interference with business contact, intentional infliction of emotional distress and prima facie tort. Obi is a tenured Associate Professor of Mathematical Physics in the Department of Physical, Environmental and Computer Sciences ("PECS") at Medgar Evers College ("MEC"), a four year college within the CUNY system. All of the six named defendants are professors within the PECS departments, and all, with the exception of Harris, at some point served as chairs of that department.

Background Testimony

Dr. Obi joined the faculty at MEC in 1991 as a professor of math in the Science Department and then transferred to the Math Department where he taught calculus and algebra for about five years. In 1996, plaintiff transferred to PECS which is a department within the School of Science, Health & Technology ("SSHT") as an Associate Professor of Mathematical Physics and received tenure that same year. Obi is still employed at MEC although he currently is not teaching any classes PECS and claims that he is ostracized by other members of the department. His resume, compiled in 2000, lists that he has taught algebra, physics, physical science, pre-calculus and "calculus with computers." (Tr. 5/28 at 53).

Between approximately 2000 and 2002 all of the PECS faculty members developed and ultimately approved a "Proposal to Establish a Program in Computer Science leading to a Bachelor of Science ("Proposal") (Pl."3").¹ The Computer Science Proposal was a lengthy document which summarized all of the computer science courses taught to date and contained proposed new courses. It also included the resumes of all faculty members and grants that they worked on. The Introduction to the Proposal indicates that the proposed Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science would have three concentrations: General Computer Science, Telecommunications and Computational Science (Proposal at 3). Obi was listed as a professor in the Telecommunications concentration. The Proposal was ultimately approved by the MEC College Counsel in May 2002.

Dr. Leon Johnson ("Johnson") has worked at MEC since 1987 as a Professor of Physics, and has been a member of PECS since 1992. He served as chair of PECS from 1995 to 2003 and also has worked as a University Research Associate with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ("GISS") in New York; this is a small NASA research center in a building owned by Columbia University. He has co-authored numerous publications and papers involving physics and climate change. According to Johnson, Wilbert Hope is the current chair of PECS.

Johnson testified that Obi transferred to PECS in 1996 or 1997 after the Personnel & Budget Committee ("P & B Committee") of the Mathematics Department denied him tenure. Johnson facilitated Obi's transfer into PECS after he had numerous discussions with Obi concerning education and research collaborations with GISS wherein Obi showed enthusiasm. Johnson brought him over so he could develop research and mentor and involve undergraduate students in research projects with CUNY faculty and NASA scientists. Although Johnson did not think Obi's teaching was strong and did not bring him in to teach at PECS, he listed the following courses that Obi was qualified to teach when he defended Obi before the College-wide P & B committee: basic physics, physical science courses, and telecommunications courses. Obi was granted tenure while in PECS.

Dr. Shermaine Austin has an extensive background in Computer Science. She received her PhD in Computer Science and has taught computer science at CUNY for a total of 26 years.

Austin taught computer science courses at the Computer Science Department of the School of Engineering at City College until 2001 when she transferred to MEC wherein she ultimately received tenure. Austin served as the Chair of PECS from 2007 until 2009. In 2010, the Chair, Wilbur Hope, appointed Austin as Coordinator of PECS wherein she assisted and advised the Chair on programming and discipline and internships for students (See Def. I—deposition of Wilbur Hope; Pl. 13—deposition of Amoa).

At some point in the 2000s Obi's relationship with the various defendants deteriorated and he was ultimately brought up on disciplinary proceedings, which are not the subject of the instant matter. Obi ultimately brought the instant lawsuit which alleged that the defendants committed various torts and tortious interference with his contract. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing all counts on the grounds that plaintiff failed to state any causes of action grounded in either tort or contract.² With respect to plaintiff's defamation causes of action, defendants argued that all of the subject statements constituted opinions rather than factual statements and that plaintiff failed to show the statements' falsity. Defendants also asserted that even if their statements were false, they were protected by the common interest privilege since both the senders and recipients of the emails shared a common interest in MEC's integrity and specifically, its computer science bachelor degree program. As such, defendants assert that they could only be found liable if the statements were made with actual malice.

Plaintiff countered that defendants statements constituted defamation per se by injuring his business or occupation. While admitting that defendants had a common interest as employees in the same institution, plaintiff contended that the common interest privilege did not apply because defendants failed to show that all recipients of the emails shared said interests. Even assuming that the actual malice standard applied, plaintiff contended that malice could be inferred by defendants' wide distribution of the emails—which proved that the emails were not exchanged to discuss plaintiff's credentials but rather were "a blatant attempt to blanket the school" with defamatory statements about plaintiffs (Dec. at 10).³ Plaintiff also asserted that defendants evinced a reckless disregard of whether the statements were false because all the defendants were his colleagues and thus had to be aware of his teaching computer science courses and contributing to the computer science program (Id. ).

Decision on Summary Judgment

Justice Vaughan granted defendants' summary judgment on the tortuous interference with contract, prima facie tort, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.⁴ The court also granted defendants' summary judgment on the vast majority of the statements that plaintiff identified as defamatory as they could only be read as "expressions of opinion." (Dec. at 17). While noting that many of these statements were "stinging," the court found that they clearly only reflected the writers' points of view (Id. ). Justice Vaughan found that only three statements remained that might properly be considered as potentially false assertions of fact, susceptible to defamatory meaning:

1) Defendant Leon Johnson's statement in a December 11, 2009 email: "On the resubmission of the [NASA] grant, Dr. Obi was dropped due to a lack of performance."

2) Defendant Shermain Austin's statement in a May 17, 2001 email: "In Dr. Obi's first attempt at CS 241 this Spring, he changed the course description, syllabus and prerequisites. Required material for this course was omitted ..."

3) Dr. Austin's statement in the same email: "Dr. Obi has never taught a Computer Science course until this spring."

Justice Vaughan found that since defendants had a made a prima facie showing that the senders and recipients of these emails, "as faculty, administrators and other persons closely involved in PECS, shared a common interest" in the integrity and well being of both PECS and MEC (Dec. at 18) plaintiff would have to prove that these statements were made with actual malice (Dec. at 18–19). Since plaintiff raised "factual questions" as to whether Austin and Johnson made these statements with actual malice in that "they may have been aware of their statements' falsity," summary judgment was denied as to these three statements.⁵ (Id. at 19).

As will be detailed below, after trial this Court finds that Johnson's statement and Austin's first statement (nos. 1 and 2) were factually correct and hence nonactionable. While the Court finds that Austin's third comment that Obi never taught a computer class until this spring was false, it also finds that plaintiff failed to prove that Austin made this comment with either common law or constitutional malice. As such, the case is dismissed.

General Principles of Defamation Law

Defamation is defined as the making of a false statement which "tends to expose a person to hatred, contempt or aversion, or to induce an evil or unsavory opinion of him in the minds of a substantial number of the community" Golub v. Enquirer/Star Group, Inc., 89 N.Y.2d 1074, 1076, 659 N.Y.S.2d 836, 681 N.E.2d 1282 (1997) ; Foster v. Churchill, 87 N.Y.2d 744, 751, 642 N.Y.S.2d 583, 665 N.E.2d 153 (1996). See, Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42 N.Y.2d 369, 379, 397 N.Y.S.2d 943, 366 N.E.2d 1299 (1977) cert. denied 434 U.S. 969, 98 S.Ct. 514, 54 L.Ed.2d 456 (1977). To sustain a cause of action for defamation, a plaintiff must prove that the statement at issue was false, published without privilege or authorization to a third party, constituting fault as judged by either a...