Internet Postings Alone Do Not Constitute "Doing Business" in New York for out of State Resident: Gary Null & Assoc., Inc. V Phillips (Courtside) Internet Postings Alone Do Not Constitute "Doing Business" in New York for out of State Resident: Gary Null & Assoc., Inc. V Phillips (Courtside)

Internet Postings Alone Do Not Constitute "Doing Business" in New York for out of State Resident: Gary Null & Assoc., Inc. V Phillips (Courtside‪)‬

Insurance Advocate 2010, August 31, 121, 14

    • 5.0 • 1 Rating
    • $5.99
    • $5.99

Publisher Description

This interesting decision concerns the new and rapidly developing area of law of the World Wide Web. In this case, the question was whether a person who posts an allegedly defamatory statement on the internet while sitting at home in Washington D.C. can be dragged into the New York courts on the premise that because the statements can be accessed on the Web by New Yorkers, the defendant is "doing business" in New York. This court held that on this set of facts, the answer is no. In this action for defamation based on internet communications, defendant moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212(a)(5), (7) and (8) dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, for failure to state a cause of action and as time-barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff Gary Null & Associates, Inc. commenced the action on July 24, 2009. The complaint alleges that defendant Lee Phillips "is a resident of Washington, D.C.," and assets a first cause of action for defamation, seeking $10,000,000 in damages, and a second cause of action for "injunctive relief directing defendant Phillips "to immediately and permanently take the aforementioned articles off of the Internet." As to the specific allegedly defamatory statements, the complaint alleges that: 1) on or about April 18, 2008, Phillips "wrote and placed an open letter on the Internet entitled Open Letter to WPRW: Gary Null's Hazardous Broadcast," stating "I realize he refers to himself as Dr. Null, and likes to decorate his name with a Ph.D., but his degree turns out to be as bogus as the M.S. that he sometimes puts after his name on publications"; 2) on or about April 21, 2008, Phillips "wrote and placed on the Internet an article entitled Gary Null's Goons Threaten to Sue Me: My Response," stating "then we can move on to his bogus credentials'"; 3) on or about May 2008, Phillips, published on the internet "another article, Does Gary Null have a real Ph.D,' in which he further discredits Null's academic credentials"; and 4) on November 6, 2008, Phillips published an article on the internet stating "Indeed, Gary Null is a real nutjob. His Ph.D happen to be bogus.'" With respect to the foregoing statements, the complaint alleges that Phillips, "in his articles, falsely asserts that Null never received a doctorate degree and that his degree is bogus,'" and that "[i]n fact, Dr. Null graduated from Union Institute & University, an accredited university, with a Ph.D degree in human nutrition." The complaint also alleges that Philips' "placement of these articles on the internet" was negligence, causing special harm, which constitutes defamation per se.

GENRE
Business & Personal Finance
RELEASED
2010
August 31
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
11
Pages
PUBLISHER
CINN Group, Inc.
SELLER
The Gale Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an affiliate of Cengage Learning, Inc.
SIZE
77.6
KB
Class Action Criminality. Class Action Criminality.
2008
The Undercivilization of Corporate Law. The Undercivilization of Corporate Law.
2008
Default Denied in PIP/UM Subro Suit for Failure to Plead Essential Facts (Courtside) Default Denied in PIP/UM Subro Suit for Failure to Plead Essential Facts (Courtside)
2011
Securities Law in the Roberts Court: Agenda Or Indifference? Securities Law in the Roberts Court: Agenda Or Indifference?
2011
D.C. Circuit Jabs First Circuit - Work Product Means Something in the Nation's Capital D.C. Circuit Jabs First Circuit - Work Product Means Something in the Nation's Capital
2010
The Scope and Application of the Work Product Doctrine As Applied to Dual-Purpose Documents. The Scope and Application of the Work Product Doctrine As Applied to Dual-Purpose Documents.
2011
Use of Race-Modified Car Comes Under Exclusion--Even Though.... Peter Stephan V Clarendon Natl. Ins (Courtside) Use of Race-Modified Car Comes Under Exclusion--Even Though.... Peter Stephan V Clarendon Natl. Ins (Courtside)
2010
Despite Insurer's Lack of Founded Belief in Fraudulent Incorporation, EUO No-Show Results in Suit Dismissal: Andrew Gegerson DPM Et Al. A/a/O Dana Frazier V State Farm Ins. Co (Examination Under Oath) Despite Insurer's Lack of Founded Belief in Fraudulent Incorporation, EUO No-Show Results in Suit Dismissal: Andrew Gegerson DPM Et Al. A/a/O Dana Frazier V State Farm Ins. Co (Examination Under Oath)
2010
Trusting Plaintiff's Attorney to Vacate a Default Proves to Be a Costly Mistake: Sz Med., P.C. Et Al. A/a/O Clarice Cowan V Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co (Courtside) Trusting Plaintiff's Attorney to Vacate a Default Proves to Be a Costly Mistake: Sz Med., P.C. Et Al. A/a/O Clarice Cowan V Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co (Courtside)
2010
Once Again, Insurer is Criticized for Claims Practices: It "Borders on Impropriety" to Selectively Cite Old, Obsolete Arb Decisions (Courtside) Once Again, Insurer is Criticized for Claims Practices: It "Borders on Impropriety" to Selectively Cite Old, Obsolete Arb Decisions (Courtside)
2010
Pre-Claim Ime No Show Supports Denial, Even if for a Different Specialty Than Bill; Only One Pre-and Post-Claim No Shows Required for Denial: Prime Psychological Servs., Pc a/a/O Brent Horne V Elrac, Inc. (Courtside) Pre-Claim Ime No Show Supports Denial, Even if for a Different Specialty Than Bill; Only One Pre-and Post-Claim No Shows Required for Denial: Prime Psychological Servs., Pc a/a/O Brent Horne V Elrac, Inc. (Courtside)
2010
Bus Backing up to Avoid Truck in Front That Was Backing up, Is Not an Emergency; Bus Liable to Car It Backed Into! Rodriguez V Consolidated Bus Transit, Inc. (Courtside) Bus Backing up to Avoid Truck in Front That Was Backing up, Is Not an Emergency; Bus Liable to Car It Backed Into! Rodriguez V Consolidated Bus Transit, Inc. (Courtside)
2010