Brown v Register
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Online statements and social media posts about a customer/student, alleged nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images ("revenge porn"), defamation, breach of contract, and discovery motion practice.
The Supreme Court, Richmond County denied defendants’ motion under Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action] to dismiss the amended complaint; granted plaintiff leave under CPLR 3025(b) [leave to amend pleadings] to add a New Jersey claim and additional defamation allegations; and denied in part defendants’ CPLR 3103 [protective order] motion and denied their CPLR 3123 [requests for admission/procedure to determine genuineness] motion to strike notices to admit and discovery demands.
The Appellate Division dismissed the defamation cause of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7) and denied leave to add further defamation allegations; it otherwise affirmed the orders, including sustaining the New York City Administrative Code § 10-180 claim and breach of contract claim, granting leave to add a New Jersey claim, and upholding the discovery rulings.
The complained-of Facebook statements (e.g., calling plaintiff "disloyal," alleging "charlatanism," and "extreme level of disrespect") were nonactionable opinions rather than provable facts; the NYC Administrative Code § 10-180 [NYC 'unlawful disclosure of an intimate image'—prohibits nonconsensual disclosure by a 'covered recipient' with intent to cause harm] claim and the breach of contract claim were sufficiently pleaded; discovery motions failed for lack of a good-faith conferral affirmation required by 22 NYCRR 202.7(c) [good-faith conferral requirement for discovery motions].
Background
Defendant Jeffrey Register is the president, owner, and operator of Galighticus, Inc. Plaintiff, a student/customer of Galighticus, alleged she shared intimate photographs with Register and that Register posted those images on Galighticus’s Facebook page without her consent. She also alleged defendants publicly described her as "disloyal," accused her of "charlatanism," and of showing an "extreme level of disrespect," and that she paid a specified sum for services defendants failed to fully deliver. Plaintiff sued for defamation, violation of New York City Administrative Code § 10-180 [NYC 'unlawful disclosure of an intimate image'—prohibits nonconsensual disclosure by a 'covered recipient' with intent to cause harm], and breach of contract. Defendants moved to dismiss under Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action], and later sought a protective order under CPLR 3103 [protective order] and to strike notices to admit and discovery demands under CPLR 3123 [requests for admission/procedure to determine genuineness]. Plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend under CPLR 3025(b) [leave to amend pleadings], including to add a claim under NJ Stat Ann § 2A:58D-1 [New Jersey civil cause of action for disclosure of intimate images].
Lower Court Decision
By order dated July 10, 2023, the Supreme Court denied defendants’ CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss the amended complaint. By order dated September 6, 2023, the court granted plaintiff leave under CPLR 3025(b) to amend to add a New Jersey claim and additional factual allegations supporting defamation; denied in part defendants’ CPLR 3103 motion for a protective order; and denied defendants’ CPLR 3123 motion to strike plaintiff’s notices to admit and discovery demands.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified both orders. It held the defamation cause of action failed because the alleged statements were nonactionable opinions, and therefore granted defendants’ CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss that claim. It also denied leave to amend to add further defamation factual allegations as patently devoid of merit. The court affirmed denial of dismissal of the NYC Administrative Code § 10-180 claim and the breach of contract claim, finding both sufficiently pleaded. It affirmed granting leave to add the New Jersey claim under NJ Stat Ann § 2A:58D-1. On discovery, it affirmed denial in part of the CPLR 3103 protective-order motion and denial of the CPLR 3123 motion to strike because defendants failed to provide the required good-faith affirmation under 22 NYCRR 202.7(c) [good-faith conferral requirement for discovery motions].
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that subjective, pejorative characterizations on social media—without verifiable factual assertions—are protected opinions and not actionable defamation, consistent with CPLR 3016(a) [requires pleading the particular defamatory words]. It confirms the viability, at the pleading stage, of claims for nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images under NYC Administrative Code § 10-180 and parallel claims under NJ Stat Ann § 2A:58D-1. It also reinforces that discovery motions will be denied for noncompliance with 22 NYCRR 202.7(c)’s good-faith conferral requirement.
To survive dismissal, a defamation claim must plead specific, provably false statements of fact—not mere insults or opinions—while claims for nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images and straightforward breach of contract can proceed when adequately pleaded; discovery motions require a proper good‑faith affirmation under 22 NYCRR 202.7(c).