Marc Anthony v Jeffrey Haas, as Supervisor of the Town of Highland, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Reporter’s privilege under New York’s Shield Law and subpoenas to journalists
Denied the nonparty journalist’s motion to quash and allowed the subpoena to proceed.
The order denying the motion to quash.
The Appellate Division held that the information sought—the identity of the unnamed Town source—was protected by the Shield Law’s qualified privilege under Civil Rights Law § 79-h [qualified privilege; disclosure only upon a clear and specific showing that the information is highly material and relevant, critical or necessary, and not obtainable from any alternative source; court must make clear and specific findings after a hearing], the plaintiff had not shown it was unobtainable from alternative sources, and the trial court failed to make the statutorily required findings.
Background
The Town of Highland suspended its constabulary, including plaintiff Marc Anthony, in April 2022. In August 2022, a local newspaper (the Sullivan County Democrat) published an article based on an unredacted constabulary-committee report leaked by an anonymous source. The article described allegations against Anthony as 'substantiated' and said the Department of Criminal Justice Services confirmed he had no handgun training. The article also stated the Town had confirmed the report’s contents but did not name the Town source. Anthony sued, including a defamation claim against Town Board member Kaitlin Haas, alleging Haas provided the report to the newspaper. After issue was joined, Anthony subpoenaed nonparty Joseph Abraham, the paper’s managing editor, for deposition and documents (including notes and texts with Haas). Abraham moved to quash under the Shield Law; Supreme Court denied the motion.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court (Sullivan County) denied the motion to quash in an oral ruling later reduced to a brief order referencing the transcript. The court stated only that it disagreed with Abraham, agreed with plaintiff, and concluded plaintiff had satisfied all three Civil Rights Law § 79-h(c) prongs for all subpoenaed material, without making the clear and specific findings the statute requires after a hearing.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed, holding the subpoena sought unpublished, nonconfidential news protected by the Shield Law’s qualified privilege. The only arguably relevant item was whether Haas was the unnamed Town source, but plaintiff failed to show unavailability from alternative sources—Haas herself and other Town personnel. The court rejected plaintiff’s waiver claim, finding no evidence Abraham disclosed or consented to disclosure of the source’s identity. Although Supreme Court failed to make required findings, the appellate record permitted de novo determinations. The court granted the motion to quash in its entirety and awarded costs.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms New York’s strong protections for newsgathering under the Shield Law: managing editors qualify for protection; identities of nonconfidential sources are covered by the qualified privilege; courts must make clear, specific findings after a hearing before ordering disclosure; and parties must exhaust alternative sources rather than rely on a journalist to prove or disprove their claims.
Under Civil Rights Law § 79-h [qualified privilege; disclosure only upon a clear and specific showing that the information is highly material and relevant, critical or necessary, and not obtainable from any alternative source; court must make clear and specific findings after a hearing], litigants cannot compel a journalist to reveal an unnamed source’s identity unless they first make a clear, specific showing that the information is indispensable and unavailable from nonpress sources; generalized assertions, self-created ‘unobtainability,’ and lack of statutory findings will not suffice.