Marc Anthony v Jeffrey Haas, as Supervisor of the Town of Highland, et al.; Joseph Abraham, Appellant
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Media law—journalist's privilege under New York’s Shield Law in the context of a defamation suit subpoena seeking the identity of a nonconfidential source.
Supreme Court denied the journalist’s motion to quash, concluding plaintiff met all three prongs to overcome the qualified privilege for unpublished, nonconfidential information.
The order denying the motion to quash the subpoena directed at journalist Joseph Abraham.
Plaintiff failed to make the required 'clear and specific' showing under Civil Rights Law § 79-h [c] [New York’s Shield Law: absolute privilege for confidential news and qualified privilege for unpublished, nonconfidential news; compelled disclosure requires a clear and specific showing that the information is highly material and relevant, critical or necessary, and unobtainable from any alternative source]. The sought identity of the Town source was not shown to be unobtainable from alternative sources; the trial court also failed to make the statute’s mandated findings.
Background
In April 2022, the Town of Highland suspended its constabulary, including plaintiff Marc Anthony. In August 2022, the Sullivan County Democrat published an article based on an unredacted report from the Town Board’s constabulary committee, provided by an anonymous source. The article described certain misconduct allegations against Anthony as 'substantiated' and reported that the Department of Criminal Justice Services confirmed he had no handgun training, citing unnamed confirmation from the Town. Anthony sued, including for defamation against Town Board member Kaitlin Haas, alleging she provided the report. He subpoenaed nonparty Joseph Abraham, the newspaper’s managing editor, seeking deposition testimony and documents (including texts with Haas). Abraham moved to quash under the Shield Law.
Lower Court Decision
After a virtual hearing, Supreme Court (Sullivan County) orally denied Abraham’s motion to quash, stating plaintiff had satisfied all three prongs under Civil Rights Law § 79-h (c) as to all subpoenaed information, and entered a brief order incorporating the oral ruling.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed, holding the identity of the unnamed Town source is unpublished, nonconfidential information protected by the Shield Law’s qualified privilege. Even assuming the information was highly relevant and necessary only if the source was Haas, plaintiff failed to show it was unobtainable elsewhere: Haas’s denial did not render the information unavailable, and plaintiff had not exhausted other potential Town sources. The court also found no waiver by Abraham and noted Supreme Court failed to make the clear, specific findings required by the statute. The subpoena was quashed in its entirety and costs were awarded; remaining arguments were not reached.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms New York’s strong journalist’s privilege: to compel disclosure of a nonconfidential source’s identity, litigants must strictly satisfy all three statutory elements and exhaust alternative sources. Managing editors qualify as protected journalists under Civil Rights Law § 79-h (f). Courts must make clear and specific findings before ordering disclosure.
In New York, a party cannot compel a journalist to identify a nonconfidential source absent a clear, specific showing of high materiality, necessity, and unavailability from alternative sources under the Shield Law.