Lukasz Gottwald Et Al V Kesha Rose Sebert

FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 04/15/2022 06:48 PM 2021-03036
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION – FIRST DEPARTMENT
LUKASZ GOTTWALD, p/k/a Dr.

Luke, KASZ MONEY, INC. and Index No. 653118/14
PRESCRIPTION SONGS, LLC, (New York County)
Plaintiffs- Appellate Case No.: 2021-03036

Appellants,
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE
- against - OF SENATOR BRAD HOYLMAN
TO PARTICIPATE AS AMICUS
KESHA ROSE SEBERT, p/k/a Kesha, CURIAE
et al.,
Defendant-
Respondent.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that; upon the annexed affirmation of Cory D.
Struble, dated April 15, 2022, along with the exhibits attached thereto, New York
State Senator Brad Hoylman will move this Court, at a term of the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, to be held at the Courthouse
located at 27 Madison Avenue, New York, New York at 10:00 a.m. on the 25 day
of April, 2022, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an order granting
Senator Hoylman leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of Defendant-
Respondent Kesha Sebert.
1
DATED: New York, New York
April 15, 2022
By:
Ellyde R. Thompson
Cory D. Struble
Michael R. Bloom
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010-1601
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Fax: (212) 849-7100
Attorneys for Amici Curiae
To:
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants Attorneys for Defendant-Respondent
Christine Lepera Daniel M. Petrocelli

Jeffrey M. Movit O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor
KNUPP LLP Los Angeles, California 90067
437 Madison Avenue, 25th Floor (310) 553-6700
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: (212) 509-3900 Anton Metlitsky
Facsimile: (212) 509-7239 Leah Godesky
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Times Square Tower
Seven Times Square
(212) 326-2000
2
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION – FIRST DEPARTMENT
LUKASZ GOTTWALD, p/k/a Dr.

Luke, KASZ MONEY, INC. and Index No. 653118/14
PRESCRIPTION SONGS, LLC, (New York County)
Plaintiffs- Appellate Case No.: 2021-03036

Appellants,
Affirmation of Cory D. Struble In
- against - Support Of Senator Brad Hoylman’s
Motion For Leave to Participate as
KESHA ROSE SEBERT, p/k/a Kesha, Amicus Curiae
et al.,
Defendant-
Respondent.
Cory Daniel Struble, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of the State
of New York, and not a party to this action, hereby affirms under penalty of perjury
pursuant to CPLR 2106:
1. I am an associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (“Quinn
Emanuel”), attorneys for Senator Brad Hoylman, who seeks to participate as amicus
curiae in this action. I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of New
York. I submit this Affirmation in support of the motion of Senator Hoylman to file
a brief as amicus curiae in this case. Senator Hoylman has a demonstrated interest
in the issues in this matter and can be of special assistance to the Court. A copy of
the proposed brief as amicus curiae is being submitted herewith.

2. Senator Hoylman is Chairman of Committee on Judiciary. He was the
Senate Sponsor for Senate Bill S52A, titled “An act to amend the civil rights law, in
relation to actions involving public petition and participation” (“Anti-SLAPP
Amendment”).
3. Senator Hoylman’s experience, advocacy and sponsorship of the Anti-
SLAPP Amendment can provide the Court with unique insights into the legislative
process and a perspective that will add to the Court’s understanding of the legislative
intent underlying the Anti-SLAPP Amendments regarding retroactive application.
4. Without the perspective of Senator Hoylman, this Court may “be
deprived of a resource that might have been of assistance.” Neonatology Assocs.,
P.A. v. Comm’r, 293 F.3d 128, 133 (3d Cir. 2002) (Alito, J.).
5. Quinn Emanuel is authorized by Senator Hoylman to submit this
motion and to submit the proposed brief filed together with this motion. A copy of
the proposed brief is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The additional exhibits identified
below are referenced in the proposed amicus brief (Exhibit 1).
6. Appellants’ and Respondent’s counsel have been notified of this
motion. Respondent consents to this motion; Appellants have not consented.
7. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy a document available
online in the New York State Library Digital Collections (at the URL
https://nysl.ptfs.com/data/Library1/pdf/NY200060392_L-1992-CH-0767.pdf),
2
which the New York State Library Digital Collection online bibliographic entry
reflects is titled “New York State bill jackets - L-1992-CH-0767.”
8. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of a digital printout of
the bibliographic entry referenced in paragraph 7, supra.
9. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and accurate copy of 1992 Sess. Law
News of N.Y. Ch. 767 (A. 4299) (MicKinney’s), available at
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/
ID2FFA6EA81D24B63995CBF896200FF54/View/FullText.html?transitionType=
Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0.
2012 N.Y. Assembly Bill A10594 (June 7, 2012) available at
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2011/A10594.
2013 N.Y. Assembly Bill A856 (Jan. 9, 2013), available at
2014 N.Y. Senate Bill S7280 (May 9, 2014), available at
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2013/S7280.
3
2015 N.Y. Assembly Bill A258 (Jan. 7, 2015), available at
2015 N.Y. Senate Bill S1638 (Jan. 13, 2015), available at
15. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and accurate copy of a digital printout
of 2017 N.Y. Senate Bill S68 (Jan. 4, 2017), available at
of 2017 N.Y. Assembly Bill A1413 (Jan. 12, 2017), available at
of a document titled Press Release, N.Y. State Legislature, Senate and Assembly
Majorities Advance Anti-SLAPP Legislation to Protect Free Speech (July 22, 2020),
available at https://nyassembly.gov/Press/files/20200722a.php.
of a document available online titled S52A (Active) - Sponsor Memo, (rev. July 22,
2020), available at https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s52/
amendment/a.
4
of a document titled 2019 N.Y. A.B. 5991(NS), New York Committee Report,
available at https://www.westlaw.com/Document/
I7B4B4A11B47011EA8043C71516FCC0EA/View/FullText.html?transitionType=
Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0
of a document titled Press Release, Senator Brad Hoylman, Free Speech 'SLAPP's
Back: Governor Signs Hoylman/Weinstein Legislation To Crack Down on Meritless
Lawsuits Used to Silence Critics, (November 10, 2020), available at
https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/brad-hoylman/free-speech-
slapps-back-governor-signs-hoylmanweinstein.
21. Attached as Exhibit 16 is a true and accurate copy of 2019 N.Y. Senate
Bill S52A (Jan. 9, 2019), available at https://legislation.nysenate.gov/
pdf/bills/2019/s52A.
22. Attached as Exhibit 17 is a true and accurate copy of 2020 Sess. Law
News of N.Y. Ch. 250 (A-5991-A) (McKinney’s), available at
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6687092023C411EBA0A3A9E79BFE8C2B
/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0
&RS=cblt1.0.
5
23. Attached as Exhibit 18 is a true and accurate copy of a document
provided by the New York State Archives in response to a request for the bill jacket
for L. 2020, Ch. 250.
24. Attached as Exhibit 19 is a true and accurate copy of 2019 N.Y. Senate
Bill S52 (Jan. 9, 2019), available at https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/
bills/2019/s52.
WHEREFORE, on behalf of proposed amicus curiae Senator Hoylman, I
respectfully request that the Court grant the instant motion and that proposed amicus
curiae Senator Hoylman be given leave to file the attached brief (Exhibit 1).
DATED: New York, New York

April 15, 2022
6
EXHIBIT 1
To be Submitted by:
ELLYDE THOMPSON
New York Supreme Court

Appellate Division—First Department
LUKASZ GOTTWALD p/k/a Dr. Luke, KASZ MONEY, INC.

and PRESCRIPTION SONGS, LLC, Appellate
Plaintiffs-Appellants, Case No.:
– against – 2021-03036
KESHA ROSE SEBERT p/k/a Kesha,
Defendant-Respondent,
– and –
PEBE SEBERT, VECTOR MANAGEMENT, LLC and JACK ROVNER,
Defendants.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
KESHA ROSE SEBERT p/k/a Kesha,
Counterclaim Plaintiff-Respondent,
– against –
LUKASZ GOTTWALD p/k/a Dr. Luke, KASZ MONEY, INC.
and PRESCRIPTION SONGS, LLC,
Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants,
– and –
DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Counterclaim Defendants.
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SENATOR BRAD HOYLMAN

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART

& SULLIVAN, LLP
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
(212) 849-7000
ellydethompson@quinnemanuel.com
New York County Clerk’s Index No. 653118/14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................2
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................5
I. THE HISTORY OF THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE

DEMONSTRATES ITS BROAD SCOPE...................................................... 5
A. The 1992 Anti-SLAPP Statute .............................................................. 5
B. The 2020 Amendments ......................................................................... 9
II. INTERPRETING THE 2020 EXPANDED ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE

TO APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO CASES PENDING AT THE
TIME OF THE 2020 AMENDMENTS ACCORDS WITH
SENATOR HOYLMAN’S INTENT ............................................................12
A. Senator Hoylman Intended For The 2020 Amendments To

Apply Retroactively To Pending Cases ..............................................12
B. The Statutory Text And Documentary Evidence Of Legislative

History Comport With Senator Hoylman’s Intention For Courts
To Apply The Expanded Anti-SLAPP Statute Retroactively ............. 15
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................19
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
State Court Cases

Gordon v. Marrone,
155 Misc.2d 726 (Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty. 1992) ............................................6
Rules / Statutes
C.P.L.R. 8303-a..........................................................................................................6
N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 76-a ...................................................................................11
N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 76-a(1)(d) ..........................................................................17
ii
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
Senator Brad Hoylman has been a member of the New York State Senate
since 2013. 1 He is a leader on several issues of public importance, including, as it
pertains to this appeal in particular, issues involving freedom of speech. Senator
Hoylman is dedicated to preserving and protecting the broad freedom of speech
guaranteed under the New York State Constitution as well as the First Amendment.
Senator Hoylman was the Senate sponsor of S.52A/A.5991A, which led to
the enactment of the 2020 amendments to New York’s Anti-SLAPP Statute at
issue on appeal. As co-author and Senate sponsor of the 2020 amendments,
Senator Hoylman was deeply involved in the drafting of the amendments and
securing their passage. His perspective on the legislative history provides unique
insight into the legislative process that led to the enactment of the amendments to
the Anti-SLAPP Statute and confirms his intent that the Anti-SLAPP Statute, as
amended, applies retroactively to all SLAPP suits pending at the time of
enactment. Senator Hoylman respectfully submits this amicus curiae brief to shed
additional light on the Legislature’s intent with respect to whether the Anti-SLAPP
Statute should apply retroactively to cases pending at the time of the amendments.
1
Senator Hoylman submits this amicus curiae brief in his individual capacity and
not on behalf of the New York Legislature or any other entity. No counsel for any
party authored this brief in whole or part, nor did any person or entity, other than
amicus curiae or his counsel, contribute money towards preparing or submitting
this brief.
INTRODUCTION
Long before the 2020 amendments to the Anti-SLAPP Statute, members of
the Legislature recognized that the 1992 version of the law, which was designed to
put a stop to strategic lawsuits against public participation, or “SLAPP” suits,
needed repair. At least as early as 2012, legislators introduced amendments to fix
the statute as the number of SLAPP suits continued to mount. In 2020, Senator
Hoylman picked up those efforts, spearheading the successful campaign in the
Senate to correct the disconnect between the legislative purposes underlying the
statute and the statute as enacted, seeking to bring the law in line with the original
goal of ending SLAPP suits.
The need for modifications to the Anti-SLAPP Statute stemmed from the
fact that, although the 1992 Legislature intended to enact a law that would root out
such suits and broadly protect the freedom of speech, it drafted the statute in
narrow terms. The 1992 Legislature aimed for a bold change in policy, giving
defendants in meritless defamation suits the power to fight back against the use of
financially burdensome litigation to intimidate critics into silence. The 1992
Legislature believed that the Anti-SLAPP Statute would bring an end to the
practice by disincentivizing SLAPP suits and eliminating the threat they pose to
free speech.
2
Once enacted, however, the statute as drafted—including its definition of
what constitutes an “action involving public petition and participation” in limited
terms and providing for discretionary rather than mandatory fee-shifting—failed to
match the policy objective the legislature had articulated at the time. The judiciary
likewise gave the statute a narrow construction that did not reflect the Legislature’s
intent of comprehensive reform. Rather than decrease, the number of SLAPP suits
in New York exploded after the enactment of the 1992 statute, crowding court
dockets and jeopardizing the freedom of speech.
Like others, Senator Hoylman realized that the law needed to be altered to
achieve the maximum intended public benefit. In 2020, he took up the task of
amending the law to better reflect the Legislature’s original intention for sweeping
protection for freedom of speech. The Legislature passed the law that year,
implementing important changes that expanded the scope of suits that qualify for
anti-SLAPP protection and made mandatory rather than discretionary the fee-
shifting for defendants in SLAPP suits lacking a substantial basis in law and fact.
As co-author and Senate sponsor of the 2020 amendments, Senator Hoylman
intended for the statute, as amended, to apply to all cases pending at the time of
enactment, with retroactive application. He was aware of the problem of numerous
SLAPP suits then-pending on court dockets. Although prior versions of potential
amendments introduced in the Legislature as far back as 2012 had included
3
language calling for prospective-only application (including the initial version of
the 2020 amendments), Senator Hoylman did not want the amended Anti-SLAPP
Statute to apply only to future cases. Rather, Senator Hoylman saw a substantial
need for the expanded statute to apply instantly to the numerous pending cases
burdening the courts and to the defendants faced with expensive litigation for
simply exercising their right of free speech. Providing for application of the
amended statute on a prospective basis only would mean that SLAPP suits would
remain in New York for years, particularly given the frequently drawn-out nature
of SLAPP litigation.
Senator Hoylman specifically desired for the amended law to take effect
immediately. As a result, Senator Hoylman chose to remove language from the
initial draft of the 2020 amendments that would have provided for application of
the expanded statute on a prospective basis only, and left in its place a directive
that the “Act shall take effect immediately.” The Legislature approved this version
of the bill, and the Governor signed it into law over the objection of those who
opposed retroactive application.
Senator Hoylman understood the statute as drafted to reflect the intent that
the amended Anti-SLAPP Statute would apply retroactively to then-pending cases.
Senator Hoylman based his understanding not only on the fact that the statute took
effect immediately but also on the fact that it provides for recovery of attorneys’
4
fees in cases “commenced or continued” without substantial basis. The 2020
amendments were remedial in nature, designed to rectify legislative errors and
narrow judicial construction that impeded the law from achieving a policy
objective that the Legislature in 1992 had expressed in broad terms. Limiting the
2020 amendments to prospective application would be inconsistent with both the
legislative history and the statutory text.
ARGUMENT
I. THE HISTORY OF THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE DEMONSTRATES
ITS BROAD SCOPE
A. The 1992 Anti-SLAPP Statute
By at least the early 1990s, New York courts had come to recognize the
growing problem of lawsuits being used by some plaintiffs to silence critics
through the imposition of financially burdensome costs of litigation. One court
defined this phenomenon—then referred to as a SLAPP suit—as follows:
SLAPP suits function by forcing the target into the judicial arena
where the SLAPP filer foists upon the target the expenses of a
defense. The longer the litigation can be stretched out, the more
litigation that can be churned, the greater the expense that is inflicted
and the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success. The purpose of such
gamesmanship ranges from simple retribution for past activism to
discouraging future activism. Needless to say, an ultimate disposition
in favor of the target often amounts merely to a pyrrhic victory. Those
who lack the financial resources and emotional stamina to play out the
“game” face the difficult choice of defaulting despite meritorious
defenses or being brought to their knees to settle. The ripple effect of
such suits in our society is enormous. Persons who have been
outspoken on issues of public importance targeted in such suits or
who have witnessed such suits will often choose in the future to stay
5
silent. Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment
expression can scarcely be imagined.
Gordon v. Marrone, 155 Misc.2d 726, 736 (Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty. 1992)
(footnote omitted).
At the time, New York law provided little in the way of protection for
victims of SLAPP suits. CPLR 8303-a set forth remedies, including recovery of
costs and fees, for a frivolous claim to recover damages for personal injury, injury
to property, or wrongful death. But the remedies were limited, with the maximum
recovery for actual expenses and reasonable attorneys’ capped at $10,000. See
Gordon, 155 Misc.2d at 734. Courts “lament[ed]” that SLAPP victims had
inadequate protection under CPLR 8303-a. See, e.g., id. at 737. As one court
observed, “[i]t is apparent that many of those who engage the judicial process for
the burden it places on their opponent, without interest or even hope of ultimate
vindication of their claims will regard the $10,000 maximum that may be imposed
as an acceptable cost of litigation, especially when the ability to wage legal warfare
is grossly disparate.” Id.
The New York Legislature took up the problem of SLAPP suits and, in
1992, passed the Anti-SLAPP Statute. The bill’s author, Assemblyman William
Bianchi, explained that the “existing protections against frivolous lawsuits [were]
6
inadequate to protect against SLAPPs.” Exhibit 2 2 (Bill Jacket, L. 1992, Ch. 767)
at 13 (Letter from William Bianchi, Member of Assembly, to the Governor
(July 14, 1992)). Echoing the courts, Assemblyman Bianchi observed that “the
existing cap of ten thousand dollars for recovery of attorneys’ fees represents a
mere cost of doing business for anybody who deliberately brings a SLAPP suit.”
Id. The Anti-SLAPP Statute was therefore designed “create a disincentive for
anybody contemplating a SLAPP suit.” Id. Additionally, the bill’s author noted
that the legal “threshold for finding a frivolous lawsuit” was insufficient, and rather
than provide recovery of suits merely lacking a “reasonable basis,” the Anti-
SLAPP Statute would extend to cases that lack a “substantial basis,” noting that
“[i]t is the intent of the legislation that the ‘substantial basis’ test creates a higher
standard than the ‘reasonable basis’ test . . . .” Id. at 13-14.
The sponsor’s memo in 1992 expressly recognized the breadth of the
freedom of speech under the New York Constitution, stating:
We protect public participation regardless of the content of the views

expressed. Punitive and needless lawsuits without substantial basis in
fact or law should be generally discouraged. But they should be
discouraged all the more if, as there is reason to believe, they deter
public debate which we as a nation consistently protect without a
value judgment about whether what is said is good, bad, ill-motivated,
pretextual or welcome.
Id. at 7 (Sponsor’s Mem., L. 1992, Ch. 767).
2
Exhibits are attached to the Affirmation of Cory D. Struble, submitted herewith.
7
Accordingly, in passing the Anti-SLAPP Statute in 1992, the Legislature
sought to stamp out abusive SLAPP suits in three important ways. First, the statute
provided that, in actions involving “public petition and participation,” the plaintiff
could recover damages only if the plaintiff established that the communication
giving rise to the action was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless
disregard of whether it was true or false. Second, the statute provided a SLAPP
defendant with a cause of action to recover attorneys’ fees and costs where the
SLAPP suit was pursued without a substantial basis in law or fact. Third, the
statute provided for an expeditious resolution of SLAPP suits by granting
preference to motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in such cases.
At the time of its passage, the Anti-SLAPP Statute was viewed by the
Legislature as a paradigm shift. In the law’s “legislative findings and purpose,” the
Legislature spoke of a new policy in the State of New York as it concerns SLAPP
suits, one that provided “utmost protection for the free exercise of speech”:
The legislature hereby declares it to be the policy of the state that the
rights of citizens to participate freely in the public process must be
safeguarded with great diligence. The laws of the state must provide
the utmost protection for the free exercise of speech, petition and
association rights, particularly where such rights are exercised in a
public forum with respect to issues of public concern.
Exhibit 4 (1992 Sess. Law News of N.Y. Ch. 767 (A. 4299) (McKinney’s)) § 1.
8
B. The 2020 Amendments
At least as early as 2012, it became apparent to members of the Legislature
that the 1992 Law had failed to accomplish the new policy goal the Legislature had
articulated at the time of its enactment. Efforts to amend the law were pursued in
the ensuing years but none were successful until 2020. See Exhibit 5 (2012 N.Y.
Assembly Bill A10594 (June 7, 2012)); Exhibit 6 (2013 N.Y. Assembly Bill A856
(Jan. 9, 2013)); Exhibit 7 (2014 N.Y. Senate Bill S7280 (May 9, 2014)); Exhibit 8
(2015 N.Y. Assembly Bill A258 (Jan. 7, 2015)); Exhibit 9 (2015 N.Y. Senate Bill
S1638 (Jan. 13, 2015)); Exhibit 10 (2017 N.Y. Senate Bill S68 (Jan. 4, 2017));
Exhibit 11 (2017 N.Y. Assembly Bill A1413 (Jan. 12, 2017)).
That year, Senator Hoylman, along with Assemblywoman Weinstein, took
up the task of repairing the 1992 Law. Senator Hoylman recognized the law’s
failure and set out to fix what he was quoted as calling at the time a “broken
system” that had “led to journalists, consumer advocates, survivors of sexual abuse
and others being dragged through the courts on retaliatory legal challenges solely
intended to silence them.” 3 He co-authored and sponsored legislation in the Senate
(S.52A/A.5991A) that he characterized as “expand[ing] anti-SLAPP protections,
3
Exhibit 12 (Press Release, N.Y. State Legislature, Senate and Assembly
Majorities Advance Anti-SLAPP Legislation to Protect Free Speech (July 22,
2020)).
9
thereby strengthening First Amendment rights in New York State, the media
capital of the world.” 4
Senator Hoylman recognized that, not only had the 1992 Law failed to
accomplish its objective, but it also had allowed a problem—already at an
unacceptable level in 1992—to snowball into a widespread issue that presented an
unacceptable threat to freedom of speech in New York. 5 Senator Hoylman
believed, as the bill’s sponsor, that this problem needed to be addressed quickly
through an overhaul of the Legislation that would take immediate effect for all
SLAPP suits pending at the time, which would clear court dockets of meritless and
abusive litigation that had been leeching judicial resources and inhibiting the
exercise of free speech rights. Accordingly, Senator Hoylman chose to remove
language in the initial draft of the amendments that called for application of the
expanded Anti-SLAPP Statute on a prospective basis and left in its place a
directive that the “Act shall take effect immediately.”
As Senator Hoylman explained in the bill’s Sponsor Memorandum, the 1992
Law “failed to accomplish [its] objective” because, “as drafted, and as narrowly
interpreted by the courts,” it “has been strictly limited to cases” involving a “public
4
Id.
5
See id. (referring to “powerful forces [who] have abused our legal system by
attempting to harass, intimidate and impoverish their critics with strategic lawsuits
against public participation, or ‘SLAPP’ suits.”).
10
application or permit, usually in a real estate development situation.” Exhibit 13
(S52A – Sponsor’s Mem. (rev. July 22, 2020)) (“Hoylman Mem.”). The
Committee Report in the Assembly echoed this sentiment, observing that “many
frivolous lawsuits [were being] filed each year that [were] calculated solely to
silence free speech and public participation, which do not specifically arise in the
context of the public ‘permit’ process.” Exhibit 14 (Committee Report, 2019 N.Y.
A.B. 5991(NS) (rev. June 16, 2020)).
Senator Hoylman’s memo explained that the law therefore was being
adopted to revise “the definition of an ‘action involving public petition and
participation,’” (Civ. Rights Law § 76-a), which would “better advance the
purposes that the Legislature originally identified in enacting New York’s anti-
SLAPP law.” Hoylman Mem. “This is done by broadly widening the ambit of the
law to include matters of ‘public interest,’ which is to be broadly construed, e.g.
anything other than a ‘purely private matter’.” Id.
Another important change was to make the imposition of attorneys’ fees and
costs mandatory rather than discretionary. As Senator Hoylman observed in the
Sponsor’s Memo, “the principal remedy [then] provided to victims of SLAPP suits
in New York [was] almost never actually imposed. The courts [had] failed to use
their discretionary power to award costs and attorney’s fees to a defendant found to
have been victimized by actions intended only to chill free speech.” Hoylman
11
Mem. He further noted that the “Legislature had originally intended to address the
‘threat of personal damages and litigation costs . . . as a means of harassing,
intimidating, or punishing [those] . . . who have involved themselves in public
affairs.’” Id. (quoting L. 1992, Ch. 767).
In 2020, the Legislature adopted the version of the amendments calling for
immediate application rather than prospective-only effect, and the Governor signed
the amendments into law, over the objection of those who opposed retroactive
application. Exhibit 16 (2019 N.Y. Senate Bill S52A (Jan. 9, 2019)); Exhibit 17
(2019 N.Y. Assembly Bill A5991A (Feb. 26, 2019)); Exhibit 18 (Bill Jacket, L.
2020, Ch. 250) at 41 (Letter from Joseph Strasburg, Rent Stabilization Association,
to the Governor (Nov. 4, 2020)).
II. INTERPRETING THE 2020 EXPANDED ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE

TO APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO CASES PENDING AT THE
TIME OF THE 2020 AMENDMENTS ACCORDS WITH SENATOR
HOYLMAN’S INTENT
A. Senator Hoylman Intended For The 2020 Amendments To Apply

Retroactively To Pending Cases
At the time the 2020 amendments were being considered and drafted, it was
always Senator Hoylman’s intent, as the Senate sponsor and co-author of the
amendments, that the amended Anti-SLAPP Statute would apply to all cases
pending at the time of amendment and have retroactive application.
12
The very same reasons that gave rise to the 2020 amendments also justified
retroactive application of the amendments. The 1992 Law had failed. The
Legislature in 1992 envisioned a law that would stamp out abusive litigation.
Instead, the problem worsened. Courts interpreted the text of the statute strictly
and narrowly in applying it and, even when courts held the statute applied, courts
often declined to exercise their discretion to award SLAPP victims compensation.
As a result, the deterrent effect of the Anti-SLAPP Statute had minimal—if any—
value, undermining the Legislature’s attempt to root out SLAPP suits and eliminate
the threat they posed to the freedom of speech. In the meantime, the threat to
freedom of speech had only metastasized, fueled by an onslaught of SLAPP suits
growing in number year after year, allowing powerful and moneyed interests to use
the court system to silence those who lawfully exercised the freedom of speech.
In 2020, numerous such cases occupied the dockets of New York courts.6
Senator Hoylman was troubled by the prospect that these existing litigations would
continue on for years, well after the enactment of the 2020 amendments,
6
See, e.g., Exhibit 12 (Press Release, N.Y. State Legislature, Senate and Assembly
Majorities Advance Anti-SLAPP Legislation to Protect Free Speech (July 22,
2020)) (“Recent experience has shown that there are an increasing number of deep
pocketed individuals who have outrageously used New York’s court system as a
means to harass New Yorkers who have publicly disagreed with them. ... It is clear
that the best remedy for this problem is to require those who bring these lawsuits to
pay the legal fees and costs of those who they have wrongfully sued, along with an
expedited means for the courts to toss these cases into the dustbin of history.”).
13
particularly given that the very nature of a SLAPP suit entails prolonging the
litigation process so that it is as financially draining to the SLAPP defendant as
possible. If the 2020 amendments did not apply retroactively, the problem of
SLAPP suits would persist in New York for years, to the detriment of SLAPP
defendants. And such a scenario would do nothing to relieve the burden on the
courts, but rather continue to drain judicial resources, unless courts could invoke
the expedited procedures for resolving such cases at the motion to dismiss or
summary judgment stage—something that would require retroactive application.
Senator Hoylman therefore sought to enact a law that would fix the
problems of the 1992 Law in a way that would reign-in SLAPP suits immediately,
not just in the future, but at the time of the amendments’ enactment. Indeed, when
the Governor signed the bill, Senator Hoylman stated, “It’s unacceptable that
wealthy and powerful interests like Donald Trump have been able to abuse New
York’s civil justice system by bringing meritless lawsuits against their critics with
the intent of harassing, intimidating, and bankrupting them. That ends today. With
the signing of this bill, New York will have one of the strongest anti-SLAPP suit
laws in the nation, protecting New Yorkers’ free speech from vindictive bullies.” 7
7
Exhibit 15 (Press Release, Senator Brad Hoylman, Free Speech ‘SLAPP’s Back:
Governor Signs Hoylman/Weinstein Legislation To Crack Down on Meritless
Lawsuits Used to Silence Critics, (November 10, 2020)).
14
B. The Statutory Text And Documentary Evidence Of Legislative
History Comport With Senator Hoylman’s Intention For Courts
To Apply The Expanded Anti-SLAPP Statute Retroactively
Senator Hoylman’s understanding that the 2020 amendments would apply to
pending cases with retroactive effect is reflected in the history of the legislative
drafting process and the terms of the amended statute itself.
During the legislative process, the Legislature specifically considered and
debated whether the 2020 amendments should have retroactive effect, with the
Legislature concluding that the 2020 amendments should not be limited to
prospective application only. The original draft of the 2020 amendments stated
that “[t]his act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to actions commenced
on or after such date.” Exhibit 19 (2019 N.Y. Senate Bill S52 (Jan. 9, 2019)). In
the draft the Legislature adopted, the Legislature altered that sentence to state only
that “[t]his act shall take effect immediately,” deleting the portion of the sentence
directing that the act would apply only to actions “commenced” on or after
enactment. Exhibit 17 (2020 Sess. Law News of N.Y. Ch. 250 (A-5991-A)
(McKinney’s)) § 4.
At that time, those following the legislative process took note of the fact that
the Legislature had opted not to limit the effect of the amended statute to future-
filed cases. For example, the Rent Stabilization Association wrote to the Governor
and asked that he return the bill to the Legislature to reinstate language providing
15
for prospective-only application, objecting to the deletion of the “prospective only”
language and requesting that the bill be “restored to its original terms so that it is
clear and unambiguous that it shall only apply to cases commenced on and after
the date of enactment.” Exhibit 18 (Bill Jacket, L. 2020, Ch. 250) at 47. The
Governor nonetheless signed the 2020 amendments into law with the “prospective-
only” language omitted.
Senator Hoylman believed that his choice to eliminate the prospective-only
language in favor of language that the “Act shall take effect immediately,” and the
Legislature’s acceptance of that version of the bill, sufficiently expressed an intent
for the 2020 amendments to apply retroactively to all pending cases. Senator
Hoylman’s view that the 2020 amendments adequately reflected retroactive intent
received further support from the fact that the Legislature left language unaltered
in the 1992 Law that specified that recovery of fees was available in any SLAPP
case “commenced or continued” without a substantial basis. Exhibit 16 § 1(a).
That language meant that cases “continued” after the 2020 amendments were
enacted would be subject to recovery of anti-SLAPP damages.8
8
Senator Hoylman’s understanding as to retroactive effect encompassed the
provision calling for application of the so-called actual malice standard in SLAPP
suits as well, for that provision is an essential mechanism by which court dockets
are cleared of meritless suits offensive to New York’s policy goal of ensuring that
speech concerning matters of public interest receive heightened protection.
16
Senator Hoylman also believed that the circumstances of the 2020
amendments contextualized the Legislature’s directive that the statute take effect
“immediately” and apply to cases “continued” without basis. The Legislature’s
intent to fix legislative errors of the 1992 Law was clear. Senator Hoylman
explained in his Sponsor’s Memo that the 1992 Law “failed to accomplish [its]
objective.” Hoylman Mem. He further explained that revising the definition of a
SLAPP suit would “better advance the purposes that the Legislature originally
identified in enacting New York’s anti-SLAPP law.” Hoylman Mem. Because the
original law was inadequate to achieve the broad goals articulated by the
Legislature, it was evident that the problem the Legislature intended to fix had
gone unabated and that new legislation was needed to immediately stamp-out cases
that, though SLAPP suits, had skirted the protections provided by the 1992 Law.
Finally, Senator Hoylman expected that the 2020 amendments would signal
to the courts that they should apply the Anti-SLAPP Statute, as amended, broadly,
rather than construe it narrowly. Indeed, the 2020 amendments amend the
definition of what constitutes a “public interest” for purposes of defining the scope
of what qualifies as a SLAPP suit, directing that the definition of “public interest”
is to “be construed broadly” to “mean any subject other than a purely private
matter.” Civ. Rights Law § 76-a(1)(d). The broad construction embodied in the
2020 amendments illustrates a consistent thread in the legislative history materials
17
surrounding both the 1992 Law and the 2020 amendments. The 1992 Legislature
specifically had included the directive for a broad construction as necessary to
accomplish the goal to “provide the utmost protection for the free exercise of
speech, petition and association rights, particularly where such rights are exercised
in a public forum with respect to issues of public concern.” Exhibit 4 § 1. The
idea that the statute should apply broadly further confirms Senator Hoylman’s view
on retroactive application, which ensures the 2020 amendments protect as many
victims of SLAPP suit as possible.
18
CONCLUSION
The motion of Defendants-Respondent for leave to reargue or, alternatively,
to appeal to the Court of Appeals, should be granted.
Date: April 15, 2022
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

SULLIVAN, LLP
Ellyde R. Thompson
Cory D. Struble
Michael R. Bloom
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
ellydethompson@quinnemanuel.com
corystruble@quinnemanuel.com
michaelbloom@quinnemanuel.com
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Senator Brad
Hoylman
19
PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT
I hereby certify pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.8(j) that the foregoing brief was
prepared on a computer using Microsoft Word.
Type. A proportionally spaced typeface was used, as follows:
Name of typeface: Times New Roman

Point size: 14 Point
Line spacing: Double
Word Count. The total number of words in this brief, inclusive of point headings
and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, table of
citations, proof of service and this Statement is 4,281.
Dated: April 15, 2022

EXHIBIT 2
APP OVAL# '-/1 .I
I
tl!W;Jr
: ,1,\,\1 I, l',I ii
4299
19Yl-1992 Regular Sessions
IN ASSEMBLY
February 27, 1991
Introduced by M. of A. BIANCHI, NADLER -- Multi-Sponsored by -- ~•. ot

A. GRAHNrs. HAAENBERG, HINCHEY, KOPPELL,, PILLI'M'ERE, SEM!NERlO -- read
once and referred ~o the Committee on Judiciary
AN ACT
rules, to amend the civil rights law and the civil practice law and
t ion in relation to dCtions :nvoJving public petition and participa-
llA'J'I: RJ:CI: lVEI> BY GOVERNOR:
OOOCOl
.,er ro~ ms l. !.',1·,. ·1·,,\Jl.1:N BY:
DATB GOVERNOR'S ACl'ION T~ :
Digitized by the New York State Library from the Library's collections.
000002
':
1
. -a:;,. , . . ·_a._·~•··• .·-··--·.
·---1-K)-~IT-:-Rt-JI.I-;-1\fi-:S-S/\-Gl-3- - t { N
1-J.--9.~- BILL JS DISAPPROVED
L l • : \ /'lo y a. \
\ ": I })ATE
------
,, !: .2t..~i '.92_______
1992 SENATE JOURNAL
JULl • 1992
PAGE ... ,.,~'?,
ASSEMBLY
~N ACT to amend the civil rights law and the c1v11 practice l•~ •~d
rules, in relation to actions :nv?!vin9 public pet111on and participa-
tion
DEMT£ WAS HAD THEHEUtc

'was rec1c! the third time
The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to the final passagt-of said bill. the same
havmg been printed and upon the desks of the members in its final form at least th~('e calendar legislative
days Jnd it was decided in the affirmative, a majority of all the Senators elected voting :n favor thereof and
three-fifths being present as follows
AVE Dist. NAY AVE Dist. NAY

17 Mr Babbush fX"11~rn 46 ML McHugh
43 ML Bruno 23 ML Mega
25 Mr Connor 30 Mrs. Mendez
40 Mr. Cook 22 Ms Montgomery
61 Mr. Daly .,.,-.,.,
.; I Mr Nolan
44 Mr. Farley .: Mr Ohrenstem
31 Mr Galrber 14 Mr. Onorato
13 Mr. Gold 36 Mrs. Oopenhermer
32 Mr Gonzalez 11 Mr. Padavan
37 Mrs. Goodhue 29 Mr Paterson
54
.
26 Mr. Goodman Mr. Perry
18 Mr Ha/perm 56 Mr. Present
6 Mr. Hannon 55 Mr. Ouattroctocchr
48 Ms. Hoffmann 41 Mr.Saland n,r,u3!ll
38 Mr. Holland 47 Mr. Sears
--· 4 Mr. Johnson SC Mr. Seward
53 Mr. Kehoe 60 Mr. Sheffer
33 Mr. Korman 9 Mr.Skelos
52 Mr. Kuhl EXCi.lS£0 20 MrssSmith
2 Mr. Lack 19 Mr.Solomon
39
, Mr. Larkin
Mr. Lavalle
35
57
Mr. Spano
Mr. Stachowski
28 Mr. Leichter 45 Mr. Stafford
8 Mr. Levy 12 Mr. Stavisky
51 Mr. Libous 3 Mr. Trunzo
49 Mr. Lombardi 7 Mr. Tully
15 Mr. Maltese 34 Mr. Velella
24 Mr. Marchi 59 Mr. Volker
5 Mr. Marino 10 Mr. Waldon
21 Mr. Markowitz 16 Mr. Weinstein
58 Mr. Masiello
AYES .:::, h
NEW YORK STATE ASSDfflLV
·mo lll'M>REI> ... I t'TEF.NTH SESSION
RLl'H I.'.;'! I l 1\ ·1 I
1).-\T, u .: 1 T l'.,ll
H!l I :\ ·l 2 'J '··
I n (.' C: r t ~t l n ~I ' t l u n tt l :: ',I

t' u !- ; :
'
y Abhute P,I y GcnoYl·si :\J y Ortlofj <
/OU .·lndcrson RI< y (; I i ck UJ }' 0' She;; c· I
y Au hr~- .J L y Gottfried RN y Pa rrne II t WL
,.
I B ,, l h o ,: i ,HA '\ (; r ab c r VJ 'r' Parulu FF
y Barburo FJ y Grannis A y Pataki CiE
)' l? a r !I t' I / lflf y Green RL y Pbeffcr Al
1' I? a r ." i:• g a ·r F y Greene A y Pillittcre JT
}' Bt"ck,·r c;R y Griffith .E y Pordum 1-J
i dcha·; JL y Gromack AJ y Pres cut: fl;
y Bl·nnctt LL y Harenberg PE y !' , V .) k i ,; .~i V
\ Bi.tnlhi IW y Hasper J y Rumirez R
). !JO!l(,Cl }} 'r' Iiawl e v RS }' Rappleyeu CD
y Bo ,. I a n d \VF }' Hea/e·r PB \'
i Ra,, t:: J
\ Hr ;1 gma n :\lJ y He,. es 'i AG y R ,' I. ll O [ (} S T.\f
y Brennan JF y Hikind D y Robach JE
y Brod s k, RL y Hi i I EH y Rosado D
-~. n r () :i· t: J!c \' Hillman MC y Sanders~
\ Butltr DJ y fI i 11 C h C \' ;\ll) .)·awicki J
'-' Cai ho :in :\' y HO\' t WB y Schimminger RL
y Cancstrari RJ \' Jacobs RS y Schmidt FD
}' Casa[e AJ y Jenkins C y Seabrook L
y Catapuno TF r John S\' y Semincrio AS
\' Christensen Jh EOR Kaufman SH y Si l,·er S
y Clark B'.\1 t' Keane RJ }' Singer CD
}' Cochrane JC ,\ ' Ke l i eh c r .\H' }' S t r a n i e r '.' PA
y Co Iman S }' King JP y Su l I i ,. ~ n EC
y Connel!v EA y Koppel! GO y Sul!ivan FT
y
y
Conners"RJ y
y
L a f a ,. e t t e IC y
y
s II I l i \ ,; II P.\f
Conte JD Lasher HL Sweeney RK
y Cook \E y Le!u . . l I"L y Tallon JR
£OR Cuomt1 c Rf y Lento! JR }' Ta/omit' FG
y Crowlcv J y Lopez VJ }' Tedisco J
y D' Anc rt',; RA y Lu s t e r l\l.\ y
.,. Tocci RC
y Daniels GL y Magee B Tokasz P
y Da 1· i d s en DR y MaYersohn ~ 1· Tonko PD
y Da ,. i s G y McGee PK. y Townsend DR
y Dcarie JC y McMi I I en DH y Vann A
EOR Del Toro A y Miller RH y V i i :! I i a n o EN
y Diaz HL y Morelie JD y Warren GE
y Di~apoli TP y !'\lurphy MJ y Weinstein HE
y Dugan EC y Murtaugh jB y Weisenberg H
y Ea n n ace RJ y Muscarella VT y l-Ve rt: RC
y Eve AO y Nadler J y Wi 1111 er GH
y Farrell HD y Nagle JF y Yoswein JA
}' Faso JJ y Nicoletti JA y Young GP
y Fe i dman D y Nolan CT Mr. Speaker
ry Flanagan JJ y Norman C
}'
Friedman G r Norr:: HR
Fri s a D 'V
i Su:: ::o l i o MF
ELB Guntt DF }" O':Veil JG
YEAS: 140 NAYS: 0
co:-:TROL, 95425004 CERTIFICATIO:-:: /S/ FRANClr-:E M. MISASI

CLERK OF THE ASS DUH. Y
LEGEND: Y=YES.NAY=NO.NV=ABSTAIN.ABS=ADSENT,
ELB=EXCt.:SED FOR LEGISLATIVE Bl'SINESS,EOR=EXCUSED FOR OTHER RE.-\SO'-S.
NEW YORK STATE ASSDIBLY
'ffiO HUNDRED FOURTEENTH SESSION
REPRINT DATE: 05/16/199!
DATE : 0 5 I 1 6 / 'I I T I ME : 0 l : 0 7 · 39 PM
BILL: A4299 CAL NO: 390 SPONSOR· BIANCHI CMS)

Prov,des for recovery of damages in certain 11ct1ons involving
pub!ic pet1tiun and p11rticipa1io11
y Abbate PJ ABS Genovesi AJ y O'Neil JG

NAY Anderson RR y GI i ck DJ y Ort/off C
y Balboni MA y Gottfried RN y O'Shea CJ
y Barbaro FJ y Graber VJ y Parmeat WL
y Barnett av y Grannis A y Paro/a FE
y Barraga TF ABS Green RL y Pataki GE
y Becker GR y Greene A y Pb err er Al
y Behan IL y Griffith E y PiJlittere JT
y Bennett LE y Gromack AJ y Pordum FJ
y Bianchi IW y Harenberg PE y Prescott lJV
y Bonacic JI y Hasper I y Proslcin M
y Boyland WF y Haw1ey RS y Ramirez R
y Bragman MJ y Healey PB y Rappleyea CD
y Brennan JF y Hevesl AG y Ravitz I
y Brodsky RL y Hlklad D y Reynolds TM
EOR Brown HC y Hi 11 EB y Robacb RJ
y Butler DJ y Hi I Iman MC y Rosado D
y Calhoun N y BI n c b_~_y MD y Sanders S
y Canestrari RJ y Beyt WB EOR Sawicki J
y Casale Al y Jacobs RS y Scbiania1er RL
y Catapano TF y Jeakins C y Schmidt FD
y Christensen JK. y Jolla SV EOR Seabrook L
EOR Clark BM EOR Kaufmaa SB y Semiaerio AS
y Cochrane JC y Keaae RJ y Silver S
y Co lmaa S y Kelleher l\W y Singer CD
y Coanelly EA y King JP y Straniere RA
y Conners RJ y King RL y Sullivan EC
y Conte JD y Ke,pell GO y Sullivan FT
y Coek VI y La ayette iC ELB Sullivan PM
y Coombe RI ABS Laslaer HL y Sweeney Rlt
y Crowley J y Leibell VL y Ta I Ion JR
y D'.A.ndrea RA y Leatol JR y Talomie FG
y Daalels GL y Lope~ VJ y Tedisco I
y Davidsen DR y Luster MA y Tocci RC
y Dav Is G y Madison GH y Tokasz P
y Dear le JC y Ma1ee B y To ■ ko PD
EOR Del Toro A y Marsbal I IN y Townsend DR
y Diaz HL y Mai-_ersobn N y Van ■ A
y DINapoli TP y McGee PK y VI ta I ia ■ o EN
y Du1aa EC y McJli II en DH y Warren GE
y Eannace RJ y Mil I er RH y WeiasteiD HE
ABS Eve AO y Merelle JD y Weiseaberg H
y Farrell HD y Mllrplay MJ y Wepr la S
ELB Faso II y Mllrtau1b JB y Wertz RC
y feldlU ■ D y Nadler J y Winner GH
y Flo,aagan II y N•,le IF y Yevo 11 .LJ
y Friedmaa G y Ne aa CT y Youa1 GP
y Frisa D y Neraaa C y Zaleski TM
EOR Gaf{ne~ RJ y Nortz HR y Zh•aer MN
ELB Gaa t DF y Nozzol io MF Mr. Speaker
YEAS: 134 NAYS: 1
CONTROL: 66223511 CERTIFICATION: fli11'8''+11 fi11\ltt•

LEGEND: Y•YBS.NAY•NO.NV•ABSTAIN.ABS•ABSBNT.
ELB•BXCUSBD POR LEGISLATIVE BUSINBSS,EOR•EXCUSED POR OTHER REASONS.
000005
STATE 01' New YOIIIM
EXECUTIVE CHAMBER
AL ■ANYl2224
MEMORANDUM filed with Assembly Bill Number 4299, entitled:
7~1
~, "AN ACT to amend the civil rights law and the
civil practice law and rules, in
relation to actions involving public
petition and participation"
Those who framed our American Constitution took care

that we could speak freely, and that our right to petition
government for redress of grievances would not be infringed.
They knew, as we know, that a government attentive to the
people's voice is the heart of self-government through electeQ
representatives, and that self-government -- with faith in the
emancipation of thought and commitment to the rights of all is
the only alternative to a tyranny abnegating that central
commitment, or anarchy based on doubt of humankind.
When those aggrieved speak out to government, ~tis

wrong for the legal process to be misappropriated to silence
them. That is the premise of this bill, which establishes
standards for recovery of damages and dismissal in lawsuits
intended to discourage public petition and participation.
The bill is New York's response to the "SLAPP" s~.i.i..,

that is, the ~trategic lawsuit 2 gainst 2olitical 2arti~1pation, a
lawsuit without substantial basis but asserting enormous damage
claims, brought to intimidate those who would oppose a
governmental act such as a permit.
In order to stifle opposition, plaintiffs in SLAPP

suits say that the people opposing them have defamed them, have
maliciously prosecuted them or have interfered with their
businesses. Although the suits are without substantial basis,
large damages are sought, and an individual unfamjliar with legal
proceedings is forced to hire a defense as the price of speaking
out in a public forum or urging on government an earnest belief.
The aim of SLAPP suits is simple and brutal: the individual is to
regret ever having entered the public arena to tell government
what she thinks about something directly affecting her.
The bill responds to SLAPP suits in three ways. First,

it provides that in an action involving public petition and
participation, the plaintiff may recover damages only if, in
addition to all other necessary elements of a cause of action,
the plaintiff also establishes by clear and convincing evidence
that any communication that has given rise to the action was made
with knowledge of its falsity, or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false, where the truth or falsity of the
communication is material. to the cause of action at issue.
Second, the bill also authorizes a defendant in a SLAPP

suit to advance a separate action, or a claim, cross-claim or
counterclaim, to recover costs and attorneys' fees where the
plaintiff's action was pursued without s~bstantial basis in law
and fact and could not be supported by a substantial argument for
the extension, modification or reversal of existing law. Other
compensatory damages may be .recovered by a defendant upon an
additional demonstration·that;the action was pursued to harass,
intimidate, punish.or malfofc,usly inhibit free speech,
association ot< the right /tt> . ,petition govermient., Punitive
damages mc1y ~ le~gVe:red \\lPQn:,;~ further demonstration .that
~~~a=~~:11:~r~~;!~!iafR:1,~1¥,G~ti~,tta~f1!~~H,ftion of rights was
,; ~AllliL~.· •······••••·x.·••.··•x•!••··•··••·
Third, the bill also provides for resolving SLAPP suits
quickly by .granting . a. preferenc,e,.::in hearing motions to dismiss or
f:~!!~E~~b~!im:;~~:;i!!t;!!i!:!;:~w~~ i~a~t!!!~n~nd
tactics ar!C~fl;~!·~= ~~~c;~::Z!!~~hi:e c~!i!~t, A::ir~ ~t~!~:t!~n

well. One may question whether it is an adequate response to
them to address only one facet of their impact, and to do so by
announcing a new standard which, although purportedly more
stringent, is no more exact than the one it appears to be
replacing. Too, the bill cre&tes a new preference without
settling its priority against other preferences outstanding. In
responding to tbe.compelling need to protect public partici-
pation, our response :!DUSt consider a rational ordering of the
other priorities we impose on our judicial system as much as the
felt response to the issue of the moment.
These problems will become acute if the bill is misused

as an opportunity fo?:" irresponsible public advocacy, or an
additional weapon by those wha place self-interest, in the guise
of public participation, above the public good.
But it is the measure of our commitment to free debate

in this State that we value speech and public participation
knowing that the power may be misused, aware that the advocacy of
some may be injurious or false, refusing to judge in individual
cases whether debate itself would be good or bad. We protect
public participation regardless of the content of the views
expressed. Punitive and needless lawsuits without substantial
basis in fact or law should be generally discouraged. But they
should be discouraged all the more if, as there is reason to
believe, they deter public debate which we as a nation
consistently protect without a value judgment about whether what
is said is good, bad, ill-n;otivated, prete:xtual or welcome.
In protecting the First Amendment rights of t.;1e people

to speak out, and guaranteeing for government the benefits of
their participation, the bill does riot trespass on the legitimate
rights of the people to seek redress in the courts. By its
terms, the bill does not affect.or preclude the right of any
party to any recovery otherwise authorized by common law, statute
or rule, nor does i~ limit any constitutional, statutory or
common law protections of defendants in actions involving public
petition and participation.
We take an important new step today to guarantee the

right to speak freely for those who, through their participation
in public affairs, make this government their government.
The bill is approved.
~I-.,"'\\' YORK STATE ASSE\fBLY
\fE\fOR4~l)UM TN Sl'PPORT Of LECISIATIOS
5441
t..SSEMBLY: .!299 SY: WllUAM e!AJJCHI
SENATE:
JITLE: Ari ~-C't 1c c:---,~~c· :t:e c'.·., r:;-~s I2,,, a:-,:J :~~ : .• · ~--p:.>::::~ .;~e la-.i¼" a~:j r,:.)es :n r-:~a::,c-0 to
cc;;cr,s ;rh,-c~·... 0g ;:~.:::::c ~~:·:;:,;-; and ~a:::c;~a~:on
PU_RPOSE: ·rhe biH ;s d,;s:;r~~= t,: ~;c~eci c'.f.z€r:s ~,ho ;:a::;.:<pa~e in i>..:tT,c a~a::s against
Ia.a.svi1s brc;..;ght In r,2~c:;arc~ against t~e~r p-=7"'t:~:pat:cn.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: The b,:l prc.,jes that a p:;;;:nU1 .-.ho is seek;ng or .-.ho has
ct~air:ed a J:<:;mit 1:cense er o!?'ler gc··.,e:nrr:ental p€-r0;ss:cr1 rr:'JSi prove •a,:tuat ma~tCS• in a
ia,.su:t that is tased on t:-,e cefe;-;danrs oppcsi!;on to u-,e permit. Toe biH a 1so es:atfishes
o;,e::;'.ed prcced;.;,es k,, :-:-ic:·cr.s ~o d sr-:-iiss S'JCh ac! cr.s The bill also es1ablishes that a cause
of ac!:cn exis:s to prc-ide r€ 1ief for s;.;ch defo'.'"ldants if tr:e p!a:ntitt brought the ac!ion Vw'ithout a
SL;bslantiai tas;s, or .-.i:h :he prpose cf rr;a·:c:ousl/ :r.r- t ~:r9 the defendant's exercise of First
Amend11ent r;ghts.
EFFECTS OF PRESENT LAV.' WHICH THIS Bill WOULD ALTER· The bi/! would change the
s~andard for ot)'.a:;-:;:-,g c:s~,:ssa: or su;-r1rr:a, j·,.;jgerr:er.t ;r; cer'.a r: aci;ons. The bill wcu,d change
the standard fer cbta:ning a~cn,ey's ~ees in cer.a;n ac~ion ty req,Jiring that an act:cn be
S 1Jpported by a "subs~an~,a:· bas;s, .-.r:;cri is rr,cre support U,an the "reasonable" bas;s require-d
in other actions.
JUSTIFICATION: The threat of p€rso;;a; da'.Tiages and litgation ccs,s must not be used as a
method of stifling the participation of private citizens i,, public a~a;rs. A fr~e society must pro:ect
the right of each citizen to speak ot11 on maners imolving gc,.ernmenta1 activity, without fear that
one's personal assets will be put at risk by a baseless reta!ialor; 13wsuit.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The act shall take effect on the first day of January upon the enactment into
law by the S1ate of New York.
ocooos
mnr YORK S'l'A'l'B ASSUBLY
JIDORANDOJI IN SDPPOR'I' OP LEGISLA'l'
submitted in accordance with Aaaeably Rule I
Bl tl.. .F.JJIOl2iu:J. Assembly 1 Senates
~~m2_9n Qrig1nol Prott of BLll.J. X Ameodeii. bill•
Sn<:m.!?.Qt:.!l.L Members of Assembly a RULES
Senate,
DIANCHI
TITLF. OF BILL:
AN AC'l' to amend the civil rightc. law and the civil procedure law and
rules, in relation to actions involving public petition and
r,a r t ic ipation
JltTKPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF 1l3IIJ.. :
The bill is designed to protect citizens who particltata in public

affairs against lawsuits brought in retaliation d9ainet their
r1rticipa.tion.
SUMMARY OP SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:

Th8 bill provides that a plaintiff who is ~eekin9 or who has obtained
license or other govern.'llantal permission muat prove "actual
e,, per:nit:,
malice· in a lawsuit that is based on the defendant's oppoaition to
the permit. The bill also establishes expedited procedures for
motions to dismiss such actions. The bill also establishes that a
cause of action exists to provide relief for such defendants if the
rlaintiff brought the action without a subatantial basis, or with the
pur2ose of maliciously inhibiting the defendant's exercise of First
Arr,,mdment rights.
F.Yr'EC"rS OF' PRESENT LAW WHICH THIS BILL WOULD ALTERt

The bill would change the standards for obtaining dismia•al or •ummary
judgment in certain actions. The bill would change the •tandard for
obtaining attorney's fees in certain actions by requiring that an
action be supported by a ~subatantialH basis, whioh is more support
than the "reasonable" basis required in other actions.
JUSTIFICATION:
The th~eat of personal damages and litigation costs must not be used
as a method of stifling the participation of private citizens in
public affairs. A free society must protect the right of each citizen
to speak out on matters involving governmental activity, without fear
that one's personal assets will be put at risk by a baseless
retaliatory lawsuit.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
New bill.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMEN'l'Sa
None.
EFFECTIVE DATB1
First day of 3anuary after passage.
i I
I
t IO n O l'. db !. (' Md r i O M . Ctiomo

rno r·, !/(~W 'l cn·r:
i~OV(• :i tc,
Executive Chamber
The Capitol
Al b ,Illy . /l '{ L? :: :H
i)edr Cove:rn1)r Cuor.1u:
LegisL1t:ion prov id i nq ',;r t.hc' ,<·, ·ov,·c; o L d:.unages in certain

.~1ct.Lons invcl•1ing pubLic pet.1.tinn .:nd participation (A.. 4299; the
~:;i_,APP bill; passed both house:: _;r t.lv: Leqic:;Jature last. ·,;ciek. It
•,;i.11. be (~ominq to you ~;hor·tly ' r· :,,tqnaturc.
This L.1nclnarJ·. l0qi,,;l;,ti.on coc1iii1cos the right ot incli·.;iduals in

the state of tlew York to <:>xpn,:::,; opin i.ons regarding the activities
that occur in their communit irs without fear of retribution through
'.rnjustified Legc1l ,:ict:!un.
tlumercus i.nd.i. victuals ;; nd ,..: 1 v ic qroups throughout the state

worked tirelessly to ensure the passage of this legislation. The
Consumer Protection Board made the legislation its number one
priority. It would be a great honor for me as well as the
individuais and civic groups of Long Island, where the first SLAPP
suit in New York state occurred, if the bill signing ceremony could
take place on Long Island duri.ng ~ugust.
If T may be of any assistance, please call me in my district

ntfice. look forward to hearing trom you.
Thank you for your consideration.
;;:~;:;J;•
William Bianchi
Member of Assembly
cc: Richard Kessel
I HF A~;SEMBI Y
'.11/\ It ()F NEW Y<)Hr<
ALB/\NY
Go1·er1wr Mario Cuomo

Enxlllil'e Chamher
Swte <·apitol
A/ham·, NY 1222./
Dear Gm·emor Cuomo:
It is with great pleasure that I write to you aho111 1/11: [Hls.wge oj' 111_\' hili A4299, the so-
called tlllti-SIAPP Suit (Strategic Lawsuits Agai11sr P11hli> Participation) hill. I am writing to
urge yo11r s11pport of' this hill a11d request your apJJroval {<,r holdi11g the official hill signing
ccremo11y of' this landmark legislt11im1, the fit'.\'/ rf its kind in the co1111t1y, i11 my district durilzg
the mu111'1 of' August or Septemher.
As yo11 k11ow, the tmti-S/,APP Suit legislation n:ce1uzr pt1ued hot// the Assemhly a11d the
Senate. This proposed law would pmtecr i111wcent citiw11s .fi·om lawsuits hmught against
i11dividua/s who exercise their first amendment ril,{111 to speak Ji·ee/y. These lawsuits, hmu[.:hl
ahow hy mtities with superior financial resources axaimr citizens trying to b(f/ttellC£! puhlic
polic.y, have Juul the effect of stifling importtllll and legitimate puhlic discussion 011 issues
afTecti11g the whole community, and illlirnidaling the ge11eml puhlic into inaction. As the prime
sprmsor of' the Assemhly bill, I fought (jb:vt lef:i'l!atio11 i11tmduced in 1985) /0 curtail this ahuse
of' the legal process to limit free speech hy making it more difftc11lt to hring such <Ill action
alww. Plaint(ff.-, would now he required w prove "suhsta11tiul" cause for the action, as opposed
to merelv "rea.wmahle" cause.
'/Jw s~•:11i11g i11tn low n,f thiv imp11r/1111f lr:,~is/rflim, r,•i11Ji1r('r'.<: hasic Pir,t A•riew!m~!l! rig!w:,
and prol'ide.\·f<Jr the 1111/'euered ahility ft•r this all(/ filf11re generations ,·o participate in the public
prtJCess.
I he/ieve it would he appropriate to have the bill sig11i11g in the Third Assembly district
as it has the tmfortwwte claim ,f hei11g the site of the fi1:\·t SLAPP Suit in the state qf New York
(A $12 million /984 ft,wsuit hroug/11 ahow by a powe1fitl developer against various civic
as.mciatiom, and private ,:itizens. Please see enclosed copy of lawsuit J7led by SRW A.\',\'ociates).
An <ffidal hill-signing in this district would thus lend a sense of' triumph IO all of those people
who have }<>ttghl to exercise their right to free speech against what onc,'! must have appeared to
he i11.wmnow11ahle odds.
OC0011
I1()<lrn 734, Lng,slativo OHico Building. Albany, New Yor~ 12;>48. 1518; 4554901
228 Wavorly Avanuo, Pat~hogu,;, New York 11772. 15161447,5:.101
<Jm·emor Alario .'it. ( ·1w11111
Julv 9, /<)<).?
Page Two
<Jnn· again, I 1vmild like to thank yo11 in adrn11ce for your decision to support ihis
l1111dm11rk piece o( legislutirm, and I tnvait your decision regtmli11g the site of' the official hill-
x1g11i11g Cl'l"l'lllON\'.
Si11u:rel1.
William !3ianclzi
:\frmher of A,scmhzv
cc: Riclwrd Kessel

( 'hie /,eadcrs
rHL ASSEMBI. Y
;; r·A·•rL OF NEV\/ YC)Hk.
ALBANY
,1 u 1y l 1 , 1 ') 'J 2
Governor Ma:cio M. Cuomo

Executive Chamber
state Capitol
Albany, New YGrk 12224
Dear Governor Cuomo:
I urge you to sign A.4229. This legislation is designed to

protect the free exercise of speech, petition and association
rights. In recent years, many citizens who have chosen to become
involved in public issues have been subjected to, or threatened
with, retaliatory lawsuits. Although such lawsuits are generally
baseless, the high cost of litigation and the fear of multi-million
dollar damages are often enough to force the average citizen to
back down and stay quiet, for fear of losing one's house and life
sav i r.g~;. Peop 1 e who have been exposed to the threat of a SLAPP
suit are likely to withdraw from public matters altogether. When
private citizens have ~2come afraid to participate in the public
proc2~,s, mn- systei 1 of g.:,vcrnment has iricurr~d incalculable da:::nage.
on October J, 1900 in Hauppauge, Ne~ York, the Assembly held

a hearing on SLAPP suit:,. 'I'hirty-one r,oople testified, most of
whom represented civic associations that have been involved with
STAPP suits in one wa:· or another. The hearing documented the
existence of 'c.he prob·, em on Long [s]and. Other inquiries have
revealed that the s1~np suit phenomenon is a statewide, indeed a
nationwide, problem.
The legislation which is before you represents a careful

oa1ance between free speech rights and the right to bring a lawsuit
for redress of injuries. It is not the intent of this legislation
t'J inhibit anybody f.roni bringir1g a legitimate lawsuit where
act i.onable conduct has occurred. However, the existing protections
against frivolous lawsuits are inadequate to protect against
SlAPPs, for two reasons. First, the existing cap of ten thousand
dollars for recovery of attorneys' fees represents a mere cost of
doing business for anybody who deliterately brings a SLAPP suit.
For that reason, this legislation craates a new cause of action--
the so-called "SLAPP-back" action, which should crecite a
disjncentive for anybody contemplating a SIAFP suit. Second, the
threshold for finding a frivolous lawsuit--the la~k of a
"reasonable" basis--is very liberally collstrued. 1-'or lawsuits
f1oom 734. Lf,gi,;i.,,t,vtJ Otf,ce Building. A!ba~y. New York 12248. (518) 455-4901
228 Waverl1• Aven1JfJ. PatchOgue. New York 11772. ('i16\ 447.5393
Governor Mario M. Cuomo
July 14, 1992
page two
involving speech and petition rights, greater protection is

warranted. For that reason, this legislation uses as a threshold
the lack of a "substantial II basis. It is the intent of the
legislation that the "substantial basis" test creates a higher
standard than the "reasonable basis" test, but not so high as to
prevent a lawsuit from being brought where there is significant and
credible evidence that actionable conduct has occurred.
The scope of the legislation also reflects a balance. The

legislation only applies to "actions involving public petition and
participation," which are brought by a "public applicant or
permittee." The definition of "public applicant or permittee" is
intended to include anybody who has begun the process of seeking
governmental approval for a proposed action, anybody who has
obtained such approval, or anybody who is acting in the absence of
a required approval. It is not intended that a formal application
be the prerequisite for inclusion as a "public applicant or
permittee 11 ; frequently a great deal of public debate will occur
prior to the submission of a formal application. The intent is
generally to cover lawsuits stemming from proposed actions which
have come to the attention of the public.
Finally, I must express my great admiration for the large

number of bipartisan citizens' groups who were instrumental in the
passage of this .bill, particularly the Coalition Against Malicious
Lawsuits. Many •of these people have experienced SLAPP suits and,
rather than qui~ting down, have banded together to insist on
legislation to ptotect the rights of their fellow citizens. They
represent Americ;_m democracy at its finest.
WB:mr William Bianchi

Member of Assembly
00001-1
\
\
B~203 (12/75) BUDGET REPORT ON BILLS Session Year 1992
NO RECOMMENDATION
No. No. 4299
Law: Civil Rights
Title: AN ACT to amend the civil rights law and the civil
practice law and rules, in relation to actions involving
public petition and participation
The above bill has been referred to the Division of the

Budget for comment. After careful review, we find that che bill
has no appreciable effect on State finances or programs, and this
office does not have the technical responsibility to nake a
recommendation on the bill.
We therefore make no recommendation.

f.
,. / ~ (/1., I'\ (l,,,_ 0
000015
L
EdwmJ C. Farrf.!ll
New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal 001cials
! 19 Wuhmgton Avenut>
E°xt't·uri1·e Dire,·tor Albany, New York i 22 HI
(518) 463-1185
Fax# 1518) 46)~1190
Memorandum in Support
June 17, 1992

A. 4299, by M. of A. Bianchi, Nadler, Zimmer
~~ Senator Marchi
This bill would amend the Civil Rights Law and the Civil
Procedure Law and Rules to provide that a plaintiff who has
obtained governmental permission must prove actual malice in a
lawsuit based on the defendant's opposition to the permit. The
bill also establishes an expedited procedure for motions to
dismiss such actions. It also establishes that a cause of action
exists to provide relief for such defendants if the plaintiff
brought the action without a substantial basis, or with the
purpose of maliciously inhibiting the defendants exercise of
First Amendment rights.
This legislation is intended to protect innocent citizens
from what has become known as a SLAPP Suit (Strategic Lawsuit
Against Public Participation). A SLAPP Suit is a lawsuit brought
against an individual who participates in public affairs in order
to threaten the citizen with personal damages and litigation
costs so that the individual will no longer participate in the
public process. SLAPP Suits are usually brought to deter
participation in such matters as landfill location, the disposal
of hazardous waste, and the development of 1and. The complaint
in a SLAPP Suit is usually based on liable, slander or tortious
interference with business. Town and village boards have
recently become targets of SLAPP Suits by developers who wish to
politically retaliate against the boards for unfavorable
decisions or to intimidate government officials into acting
favorably towards their projects.
In America, where political participation is a favored
value, such intimidation poses a serious threat. Citizens who
actively participate in the political process may be deterred
from running for office by the threat of a lawsuit. Currently,
Part 130 of the New York Trial Court Rules provides for sanctions
against attorneys for initiating frivolous law suits. These
rules are however vague, and may do little to dissuade an
attorney from filing a SLAPP suit.
For the foregoing reasons the Conference of Mayors supports
the enactment of this bill into law.
BJS:mc
OC0016
NEW YORK STATE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
IJ lfil,
PRESIDENT
R,,t-cn ._ W1~h.,ld1
EXECUTIVE V!CE PRESIDE~T
~EMORANDUM IN OPPOSI
A.4299 BY Bia.nchi, Nadler, et.al., Passed Assembly

S 5441 By Marchi, Senate Rules
ACTIONS INVOLVING PUBLIC PETITION AND PARTICIPATION
The New York State Builders Association opposes the subject

bill which would grant special protection against libel and slander
actions to only one class of participants in public proceedings
related to permits, zoning, licensing and similar situations. Our
~embers, builders, developers and contractors, are "public
applicants or permittees" under the terms of this bill.
We recognize and do not condone lawsuits brought by per.nit

applicants for the sole purpose of stifling criticism by an
'ividual, a civic or an environmental group. But, the subject
.1 would heve a chilling effect upon a builder's legitimate
right to bring an action for damages in cases of slander or libel
in connection with the dozens of approvals necessary to conduct a
building business. Shielding all opponents from legal consequences
of defamatory utterances or written attacks, however damaging to
builders reputations and ability to ea.rn their livelihoods, is not
the proper answer to SI.A.PP suits.
In today's climate the rule of the NIMBY has replaced the rule
of law at many informal hearings held before local planning ,
zoning appeals boards and similar groups. Often the project
proponent is an· isolated individual surrounded by a hoard of
opponents. A hearing can rapidly degenerat-.e into a builder bashing
session with few holds barred. Project opposition leaders turn out
and stir up crowds with circulars and phone networking designed to
paint the blackest picture of a project and its sponsor. When
truth is left behind in the heat of project opposition, real and
often lasting damage can be done to the permit applicant.
Both the proponent and opponents of an application are

simultaneously petitioners before their government. The proponent
petitioner should be offered the same protection for any remarks
directed against him by project opponents.
JUN O9 1992
-r .
I
I
•
Albany, NY"l2207 (518) 465-2492
00001.7
5, 5'4'fl
Financial sanccions against ny P. y or attorney engaging in
f:,:ivolous conduct as well as reimbll!l!"!fiement for costs and attorney's
fees are available under the Rules of the Chief Administrator of
Courts, 22 NYCRR 130-1, which are designed to prev~nt frivolous
suits. The subject bill would allow recovery of a defendant's
costs and.attorney's fees, if an action was found to have been
commenced without a "substantial basis in fact and law". The
existing sanctions for frivolous conduct require that an action be
deemed "completely without merit". The less burdensome rules of
the subject bill protects only those who are not public applicants.
Damages may only be recovered by a permit applicant when it

shall have been established by "clear and convincing" rather than
a "preponderance" of the evidence that any communication giving
rise to the action was made with knowledge of its falsity or with
reckless disregard of whether it was false. This higher burden of
proof would fall on permit applicants, in effect, making them
public figures.
In the absence of any evidence that the existing Rules are not
adequate, the subject bill would grant exceptional immunity to
abusers of the reputation of permit applicants. The relative
rarity of permit applicant lawsuits is demonstrated by the
exaggerated media coverage given them. Do a few scattered
instances of litigation really chill public participation? Or, do
the suits give pause to those who would defame with impunity?
An alternative to the extreme approach of this bill would be

to permit an expeditP.d proceeding to determine whether an action
constitutes a SLAPPsuit. If this were linked with an increase in
the sanction applicable for such a fivolous suit, it would deter
such lawsuits without requring any change in the current law of
defamation.
The subject bill would affect many other interests besides

builders. The same zoning and planning bc,ards at which builders
appear often have home owner and land owner applicants who can be
subjected to vicious attack by neighbors. Additionally, licenses
and permits are required from countless businesses by numerous
state and local agencies. The number of individuals who would be
deprived of protection in connection with their reputations arising
from permit and licensing applications h, legion.
We urge amendment as suggested or de:Eeat.
~ u l l y i4'mi/fted ~
J~-~iJ/4JYJ
Robert A. Wieboldt
Executive Vice President
ocoo:LB
r~ New York State Conference of
dward C. Farrell
xecutiw Director
119 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12210
(518) 463-1185
Fax# (518) 463-1190
Memorandum in Support
June 17, 1991

A. 4299, by M. of A. Bianchi, Nadler, Zimmer
s. 5441, by Senator Marchi
This bill would amend the Civil Rights Law and the Civil
Procedure Law and Rules to provide that a plaintiff who has
obtained governmental permission must prove actual malice in a
lawsuit based on the defendant's opposition to the permit. The
bill also establishes an expedited procedure for motions to
ismiss such actions. It also establishes that a c~use of action
xists to provide relief for such defendants if th~ plaintiff
brought the action without a substantial basis, or with the
purpose of maliciously inhibiting the defendants exercise of
First Amendment rights.
This legislation is intended to protect innocent citizens
from what has become known as a St.APP Suit (Strategic Lawsuit
Against Public Participation). A St.APP Suit is a lawsuit brought
against an individual who participates in public affairs in order
to threaten the citizen with personal damages and litigation
costs so that the individual will no longer participate in the
public process. SLAPP Suits are usually brought to deter
participation in such matters as landfill location, the disposal
of hazardous waste, and the de~elopment of land. The complaint
in a St.APP Suit is usually based on liable, slander or tortious
interference with business. Town and village boards have
recently become targets of SLAPP Suits by developers who wish to
politically retaliate against the boards for unfavorable
decisions or to intimidate goverrurlent officials into acting
favorably towards their projects. I
In America, where political ~articipation is a favored
value, such intimidation poses a serious threat. citizens who
actively participate in the political process may be deterred
·om running for office by the tht·eat of a lawsuit. currently,
.rt 130 of the New York Trial Court Rules provides for sanctions
against attorneys for initiating frivolous law suits. These
rules are however vague, and may do little to dissuade an
attorney from filing r ~- "'"'"" ~,- -1 t:.
For the forego in~ .. _ -.ue (.;om:~z-ence of Mayors supports
the enactment of this biil into law.
3JS:mc
OC001.9
To: MEMBERS OF THE SENATE
v
From: RICHARD M. t:ESSEL, EXECUTIVE OlRE''.Tf"JP
STATE CONSUMER PR01'ECTION BOARD
Date: JUNE 30, 1992
The New York State Consumer Protection Board SUPPOR~S:
S.5441 Marchi Limits on StratQgic Lawsuits

Against Public Participation
( 'SLAPP Suits")
The Consumer Prot<:>cti•Jn f3r~ar-:! (CFB) supp'"Jrts S.5441, ·,dii':h

would limit the ability of companies to file malicious lawsuits
popularly known as "'.3LAPP Suits· rSt:rat<:>gic Lawsuits i\'J'Jinst
Public Participation.)
SLAPP suits are lawsuits brought by companies, such as

developers, in retaliation against citizens who attempt to
influence permit and other governmental actions affectiWJ their
businesses. Many SLAPP suits alle9e that citizen statem,~nts
about the company constituted libel or slander. According to a
1989 survey by two University of Denver professors, the largest
number of the hundreds of SLAPP suits filed nationally involved
development and zoning issues (251). However, consumers
reporting problems with products and services, tenants reporting
problems to city health authorities, and citizens opposiw:1
incinerators, bars and garbage dumps have all be'::!n subject tc,
such suits.
Sur"✓ 0ys indicate that a majority of SLAAP suits ar<?

e'1<?11tual ly dismissed. However, unfortunately, they suc,:;'9ed in
their real purpose: to intimidate citizens in the '::!Xercise <:•f
U1ei r First Amendn,ent rights. E·:o.n where a SLAPP suit lacks
w?rit, the <.::itizens may hav'? t0 <?Xp<:>nd thousands of d0ll-1rs <Jn•J
11'::iurs ,jefending th<?msel-,·<?s in '::0urt. Just as importantly, SLI'v'\P
lawsuits impede the effecti"✓ '::! functi0ning of gov'9rnment, as they
,Jeter citizens from pr,.:,·:iding "!"1i•:l0nc<=: <Jf wrongdoi.ng t•J
'l•Y1<=:rnm'::!nt agencies cow::erning matt,=-rs 11nder their jurisdi•:t".i0n.
Thes"! concerns are illustra':.e,J by tw<J recent SLAAF suits in

'.:Ur state. Earlier this year, a State Supreme Court .Justi~;e
dismissed libel charges in a $6.6 111illi0n SLAAP suit fdL?d in
1987 by a developer alleging libel against Betty Bla~e, the
President ,::,f the Wantagh Woods Neighborhood Association i.n Low-1
Island. Blake objected to the demolition of a house acr,Jss the
JI. ff 1 ,m
s•reet from her and the det5truction f large stately t~l:'ees cm, the
property. Several other citizens who were pr,;wiously named in
the lawsuit settled with the ,:;ompany and ended their itVJp
to the project. However, Blake reports that she ha<:! sp-and
most of her free time defending against the suit.
Further, <', lawsuit was brought by a Manhattan nursing h,:ime

aaainst the Friends and Relativee of the Institutionalize1 Aaed,
I~c. (FRIA) as a result Qf the organization's investigatio11 •Jf
the home. FRIA's actions helped spur a New York State De~artment
of Health investigation of the facility ~hich uncovered serious
lapses in patient care.
This bill is intended t,r) penalize frivolous SLAPP suits--
not prevent companies from raising legitimate legal claims
against citizans. Specifically, tho bill would: (11 require that
the plaintjff establish by clear and con7incing evidence that the
•:it izi:,11s' statements ',H,;re mad<:! ;;ith knowledqe or with r<c?d,les$
Jisrsgard of their falsity in la;;suits where ihe truth or fals
,,f th0 •.Jefcc!ndant' s statsmsnts was ··m,:1t.erial" t0 the caus<?
,i•·ti•m i i . 0 . l ib•d nnd ,Jofamat.i•)n s•Jits (2 give citizens who
·,;nr<? ,j,,d,<mrjunts in -'Hlj,' SL!•.PP S!li!: found to lack merit th':? ~ight
t0 recover attorney·s fees and costs, with punitive ~amages
,r:ailabl<:? up•)n a showiwJ th'lt. th'? suit ;;as "'commenc.Pd 0r
,:,,ntinued fc,r the s•,Jl'~ purp0s,::. -::,[ harassing, intimi•:lating,
r•un i sh i n<J ,,r otherwise maliciously inhibiting the fr<~<? exercise
~f sreech, petition or association rights; and (JI require
,_,•Jurt::, trJ rwar rnoti 1Jns t-::., dismiss rJr for summary judgment in a
SLiv1P suit. c:,n an e,:p•?di tc,d basis s•:; that citizens are not dragged
~ hr•Jugh prr~>trar:tC?d c0urt pPY:eedi1v:1s.
This bill ensures tha•_ c i tiz"'n"" may r3ise legitimate

concerns to governmental authorities without the prospect of
retaliation. Nothing in this bill prevents businesses from
pursuing any other avenue~ presently available to them, including
disputing the citizen contentions in permit and other
governmental hearings.
f 5.SHl.
MEMOBANOUM FOR THE GOVERNOR
R[. Assmnbly 4299
This bill amends the Civil Rights Law t,nd the Civil Practice Law and Rules
with regard to legal actions "involving p1Jblic petition and participation". Its
purpose, according to the legislative findings, is to prevent lawsuits and the
threat of lawsuits frorn being "used as a means 0f harassing, intimidating or
punishing" tho sf: "who have involved themsel·,,es in public affairs."
Tile bill, which would take effect on January 1, 1993, creates a new type
of legal action called an "action invo'1ving public petition and participation".
It then sets forth specific rules gov1arning such an action, which rules are
ditferent from those governing other legal actions.
This new type of action is one brought by a "public applicant or

permittee," which is defined as "any person who has applied for or obtained
a permit, zoning change, lease, license, certificate or other entitlement for use
or- permission to act from any rJovernment body, or any person with an
interest, connection or affiliation with such person that is materially related
1
to such application or permission." An action brought by such a plaintiff
involves "public petition and participation" when it is "materially related to any
efforts of the oefendant to report on, comment on, rule on, challenge or
oppose such application or permission."
The bill sets forth the special rules governing these types of actions. First,
section 2, adding a new section 70-a to the Civil Rights Law, authorizes
sanctions against a plaintiff who brings such an action in certain
circumstances. If the action is without a "substantial basis in fact and law
and could not be supported by a substantial argument for the extension,
modification or reversal of existing law", the defendant who is being sued
may recover costs and attorneys' fees. In addition, if a court finds that the
suit was brought for the purpose of "harassing, intimidating, punishing or
otherwise maliciously inhibiting the free exercise of speech, petition or
association rights", other compensatory damages beyond costs and attorneys'
fees may be awarded. If any of these factors is found to be the sole purpose
of the suit, punitive damages may also be awarded.
1 Plaintiff is used here, as in the CPLR, to mean a person

asserting a claim, cross claim or counterclaim.
MEMORANDUM TO THI:: COVEfUIOH 2
RE: A. 4299
Secondly, section 3 of the bill, which adds a new section 76-a to the Civil
Rights Law, provides that a plaintiff, to recover damages in such an action,
must prove by clear and convincing e,1idence that any communication giving
rise to the action was made "with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless
disregard of whether it wa~ false, where the truth or falsity of such
communication is material to the cause of action at issue."
Lastly, sections 4 and 5 of the bill, which amend sections 3211 and 3212
of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, provide for special rules for motion
practice in these types of cases. A motion to dismiss or a motion for
summary judgment brought by a defendant seeking the protection given by
the special ru:es governing these actions must be granted unless the plaintiff
can demonstrate that the claim has "a substantial basis in law" (in the case
of a motion to dismiss) or "a substantial basis in fact and law" (in the case
of a motion for sui-nmary judgment), "or is supported by a substantial
argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." The
court!i are directed to grant 2 preference in the hearing of such a motion.
The type of lawsuit this bill addrnsses has become known as a SLAPP suit,
an acronym for "strategic lawsuit against public participation." In recent years
SLAPP suits have been brought with increasing frequency with the cltrnr
purpose of discouraging potential opponents from involving themselves in a
public debate in which the person initiating the SLAPP suit has a stake. For
example, an applicant for a government permit may file baseless claims of
libel or harassment against a citizen who protests the granting of the permit,
or a plaintiff may file such claims against someone who, in the exercise of his
or her first amendment rights. speaks out against the plaintiff.
Although such a suit is rarely successful on the merits, it succeeds in its

real purpose of stifling public debate on the issue in question. The defendant
in such an action is forced to hire an attorney and incur potentially great costs
in the defense of the action. Frequently, the victims of these SLAPP suits
suffer physical and psychological effects from the anxiety that comes from
being named as a defendant in a case sometimes claiming millions of dollars
in money damages.
Over the past several years, I and my staff have been greatly troubled by
the growing u.5e of SLAPP suits. We have been particularly concerned about
the use of this insidious tactic in stifling citizen initiative in cases where there
is a significant disparity in the respective resources of the parties involved,
which is most often the case, and in areas such as environmental protection,
in which public involvement is a critical part of the process.
Recently, a decision by the Westchester County Supreme Court made a

very strong statement against SLAPP suits. In this case, a real estate
developer used the courts to contest the tax exempt status of the Nature
Conservancy. The Court concluded that the purpose of the suit was clearly
to harass this environmental organization for its lawful challenge to a
MEMORANDUM TO THE G0 1/EH!IOP 3
HE: A. 429'1
subdivision. My office submitted an amicus brief in support of the Court's

order of sanctions against the plaintiff.
The decision in this casE.•, JiQtWUt,_JVlarron,~, Index #18554/90, Judge

Colabella, dated April 13, '1992, is particularly important on the issue of
sanctions. The Court deplored the fact that under current court rules it could
only penalize: the SLAPP plaintiff up to $10,000, clearly less than the actual
cost.s to the SLAPP defendant. This case underscores the need for legislation
tn this area.
Howuvm, an appropriate ll:gislative solution to the problems raised by

SLAPP suits is not easy. Any bill must be carefully drafted so as to
discourage SLAPP suits while, at the same time, not acting as an obstacle to
the commencement of legitimate lawsuits. Distinguishing between the two
can be difficult.
This bill attempts to prevent ttie risk of its being applied too broadly by
ii mi ting its application to actions "materially related" to a governmfmtal
application submitted by the plaintiff. This should effectively prevent its being
used to limit legitimate legal actions, but it also m8ans that certain SLAPP
suits will not be covered. For example, a SLAPP suit brought by a landlord
against a tenants' organization protesting housing conditions will not be
covered by the bill if it does not relate to a governmental application filed by
the landlord. Given the risk of being overbroad, this bill represents a good
first step. Whether plaintiffs wili be able to avoid its provisions by suing over
matters not related to a governmental application remains to be seen.
The value of the bill will depend, to a large extent, on its interpretation by
the courts. It contains many new definitions, terms and standards which the
courts will have to construe. For example, the courts can limit plaintiffs'
ability to avoid the provisions of tht~ statute if they hold that any suit is
"materially related" to an application if it is meant to be retaliatory or would
otherwise not have been brought were it not for the act of public participation.
Especially important is how the courts will treat the new motion practice.
Whether or not a motion falls within the special provisions of the bill,
which are designed to quickly terminate SLAPP suits, depends upon whether
the action to which it is addressed falls within the bill's provisions. If a court
were to hold an extensive hearing to determine whether an action is one
"involving public petition and participation" before deciding a motion to
dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, the bill's purposes will have been
defeated. Hopefully, courts will construe the bill's complex language in a
manner consistent with its objectives.
In addition, the bill does not cover actions seeking only injunctive relief.
Whether this proves to be a problem remains to be seen.
MEMORANDUM TO TH GOVERNOH 4
RE: A. •1299
While this bill is clearly not a panacea to the problems created by SLAPP
suits, it does represent the legislature's first attempt to deal with this type of
misuse of the courts. Given the difficulties of drafting a workable bill, this
bill should be permitted to be tested. With what I believe should be the
appropriate construction of the bill by the courts, it could be effective. To the
extent that problems continue, additional correctiv~ legislation can be enacted
in the future.
For the reasons stated above, I urge approval of the bill.
Dated: July 27, 1992
Respectfully submitted,
rk State Conference of Mayors and Muni~al Officials
---------------- 119 Wash,ngt()n Av~:nue, Albany, New 't'ork 122101513, 4F{3 118',
Toll tree number for NYCOM member<; 1·BOO 44f/J2•;S
i,:;i,;: # r51>31 4>i'i 1 ",r;
July 27, 1992

Oor\,tld J !ilurray
Hon. Elizabeth D. Moore
Counsel to the Governor
Shawn Hogan Executive Chamber
State capitol - Room 225
fhomas M Whalen Ill
RE: A. 4299
James P. Caruso
Dear Ms. Moore:
Kevin D. Earl
The conference of Mayors has reviewed this
~-..1dl\;~ L ,.;_i_:_.,'i legislation and recommends that it be approved.
Peter lasillo
This bill would amend the civil Rights Law and the
Richard G. Lockwood Civil Procedure Law and Rules to provide that a
ph,intiff who has obtained governmental permission must
Francis X. O'Keefe prove actual malice in a lawsuit based on the
deftmdant's opposition to the permit. The bill also
Peter D. Quinzi
establishes an expedited procedure for motions to
Joel E. Rosenthal
dismiss such actions. It also establishes that a cause
of action exists to provide relief for such defendants
Dorothy Storm
if the plaintiff brought the action without a
rd.1yor F r~:.:;pr;r~ substantial basis, or with the purpose of maliciouoly
Thomas G. Young inhibiting the defendants exercise of First Amendment
M:;yc;r, SyraCJ'.;!: rights.
Richard Falanka This legislation is intended to protect innocent
r,J vs Asr,oc1at1on r:-A r::;,ty citizens from what has become known as a SLAPP Suit
,,,,d Vitiagr1 Cl.;rks
(Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Town
William H. Kelly
an~ 'i]~aqe b0a~ds have recently become targets of
1
M.1ynr .A.c.t1a,okr,e1 SLAPP Suits by developers who wish to politically

Juanita M. Crabb retaliate against the boards for unfavorable decisions
r-,fay,ir. B,ngriarr,rv, or to intimidate government officials into acting
Louis C, Mancuso favorably towards their projects. Citizens who
Mayor Fr,,don,a actively participate in the political process may be
Robert J. Peacock deterred from running for office by the threat of a
Mayor. L ;i~.; P:;iC1cJ lawsuit. Currently, Part 130 of the Ne~w York Trial
Robert G. Gardner Court Rules provides for sanctions against attorneys
Ma-yor W1·ll~·1di1:
for initiating frivolous law suits. These rules are
however vague, and may do little to dissuade an
Edward C. Farrell
attorney from filing a SLAPP Suit.
~celal:JUI)
4t:fr-d ·c~ Farrell
Executive 1>irector
ECF/bs/mc•
f' · I I ', , '1 J 1 :-: t , J
. l
"'I
•: I .-1 I, , ,, , , , ., • t i , ., , r,., ,:, , , 1
I I,) I,,'. .,,,, • 1 I i'I .
I'. I I
, ,r,
'!'},,, l'r, ,fr • t 1 1 ,ft T~ f l, l l , l •., f· '., 'r '' I !_ ·, ~:: 1J J \T ,, it ;
•_,•r ''1 .l l i "' i • '. f r • 1 ,Tfq_,,·1r1 j -L)~ f

I" 'l," l . " . ; I,,', I' l • .,-•, 11 .I , ' I·: f ! ,·1 t
1· 111 , 1 i , i J , /) 1-· i , , t,
' ' . \
·:11.i I ,! l, ,\ ..\ ~·,_\JHJ/;-JfliL:~~ :-:,,,·lt

,_,_,, ;1 I i ., t i, 1 _i ~,211:,~ wli,, :1, , ·•111>1
! "'i Ill I .-,,,-1 " ! - l I' I' . l• · t- 1 r 'fl S .;l f f c•, · f t • t •J l If· 1 I
r 1:-, , , -,- .--, I l , ".IL. f f t ,:t f ,- • i_ f. _I ·,-:'--'ft r:: ' ;i I ' • fltr ' r I I
, ·, •l!!f ,,, l ll \" I"· I · ,, T\, ., ·, '?_, ! '1' I

f lt~·fl""t_,, [ l _l.' ~
.f £? S :-: f~l f~· ;'.-:
I 1 1 .11 '.I'
l l I 1 Ill I ., . I • ' I 1,' 111.IJ I' I 1 ' " I,:; .f • : !. {\ l' I. I·: Jw,f n,1t i"ri:,J l ,,._.,,I····· I
,J,::·.:~,-!1.~•,•J!fL;rlt r)f) 1 ·J 7.,-_,,,_1r1_(J i:--:s,1c:,:<
, ,.,,,,,ti 11•1 ,,,_-,,J,twm~ :,:i t.1, 1·• ,,,J11•·!_~,
I',·,_,,' I <=!Ill'.-; ,_,' , . j f_: ·r· ; , , 11. Ji,-,,_· _i_ t i '_''.-~ ,7tttcl r:;.1-t_i::-:c..}n~~ ''1'J_H,~-.;
ill'' i no1·:it:,_'1_'S ba.c=:; Ji;c1,7~ al_J bc,,r-"n snl,j,,,·t
(~ I I f ' I, :~ II _j t c" .
I j,_, I .
'. .. .-. f
t , r, t , , , _1 t r 1 0. t. c:,?, l "'\·· , t_:lr.,,·;' ., I II
J 'J 1 J,. J l I t ~ 7 ': • ".' f I i in! imi ,L,t , ·if i_ :-:c~11~: _i II 1- h,-, i Ill, l I
I__ ""' i __,_ F _i_ ,_~'.I j\,u,-::,,,, lrnc.·~11 I • i '.I Ir I c:: ::l,i',IT
·:11 ; :"\1 ·1- lll''I ii 1,,, f '•.-.' ''1': Jlf,l l,.-·,··1, t·
, 1,, I I." . , ,f,>f,-11,I i 11·1 ,_ " t •, , '1 l f 1 11-· I

·: 1.r. r· 1· 1 nq ,, i, I, ; • ~" i n,, '' f
~, J I > •• ' ' l 1 I f If' '• f t f ,,,,·: j f f --, 11'..''. ; .f. n,·,. '• I
· ; , , , , , , , . , , . ; 11•1
i111 j,:,Ji,·t ;,.,,
·, •rt,-' c, 1 fl~-~ ;·1 t 1 '
, I i , : 111 i ,.: c:, :' I ,.,., 1:: ;) , I ;_ ,:, 1 I I, I I
'·
': t , t f •-•
111illi."t1
~-~1_1 t'_l'C~ft\i...:.:
~~T.i\PT'
! - .. tq y
,_,,, t· ,;!,"I
l '1 •: I
i••
I 'I!?.. I,·, .' .' ' .•• ,: ,_, I , _,,. ,, , I :·, ! 1. . . . ,,,.7i_11,~, n,.:tt·, n_,.,,.,, 1, •.
f•1 , , :: i ,J, · 11 I '' I Ifie, lv,J11l:1,_J'1 , n 1.,,11•1
lsl,Hld, Blc1k1~ ubjE}t;te•:I !;(• t'1 1,• ' ' ' ' ' " ' " j t i,n11 ,,:,f !'.I J1c 11 HH: , .. , , ' ; 1 It,,
c1trf!f;'t (JT>m ht;•i: ilfld thlc:: d•:?f:~t:1:11cti 1 111 ,:,f l,J.J'';T'~ st,3tr::,ty l nd f" ,,pill1 1 •
r\ .t~l)J.''-=' ,l.~ t V ~ E; f:-:J Vt.~ J~~a 1 1} th') l~ (,.: J ·~ i z f'J 1l s ,,,,; h,., r.4,.:? L'i? J? l'.''2!'/ J ~) t1 ~,'~ J y 1t ,J n,, fl:; ; 11
th,·• l,'11,,;nnit ,~<~tt·J,?•.:I with ti),,- '"()lllf',.H1 1· .cin,·1 ":'ndrv.1 t·.h,:•ir· • f'l"''.:i! i " "
f.11 thn p.r:oj~,11.:t. J{(n,1<:1'-/"-'1, Fqr:lk'-' ,,_?fl'"·t.s that s1i,, li;,d 1" •::",nd
lllfl(-:1 td 1,0r fn:1 1? .i,mi:> ,-t,:,fc,11,:IJ.n(_I ,"lq;:'lin•:f t·lt,:i ~11Jt
i
F,,,th<:''-, ;~ l;1wsujt ..,,.,c,,~ '"""'J''' 11 \· ; , J·1,:inh,cit.t.J111 '"'' ;,,,,11,.,11,.
.,,;1.-1i11:~t th,· F1-1ends ,-1rvl p,•l-"1ti_,;c!:~ ,,f '·"'' Tnst.i.tut,i 1 '11;1fi;·,.·I ·,;,,,
I Ill.. ( FP Ti\) i)'.;~ rl t:<cJStd. I "f t: fi,;, • "''F'" i ·-_;1': iClll, s .i.JlY<'}/: t i. i ; , t J "ill ' "
t ft,, hnrw· Fli(l\'s act.i_nn:=: '1,,1_,,od :=:1.•1.1r ;, I.Jc.-.,.: v,:,.1.·k St.:1t:•-· r,,_,,,,.1, t;111n1,t
,,., ""'-:ll th .i.n\·91;:tigatj_,}JI ,.r the f;.,,·LI it·.·, wh.i.ch ''.111'>":c,,,:-,,, ,:,,, ;, .. ,::
I ,c11•sc•s in p,::11 i.<:=:nt r::a1·e.
Thi,, hi 1 I
fli 1 f J.•l 1 _;··r'Jlt r,''-'ft1r:.1 rt i_~_:.::-:: f.t·,_,fH _t•_,,_l_::.;_;-~q".f !~::-,:~_ij~ ! .. ]JH/7~t~":-· l, ~J~-' i ~ fl .:_t} tti•-:
,·itiz:,-::•ns.
;i,.i:-1i11!~, Sp 0 ,_:i_f_i_,:a.lJ·{, the l~•iJJ. ,,,ouJ•J: 11 1·"~•11•i1_,,/ ,ti;,t
111,, "'"int i f f •:?stahlii::h I•\- ,·lc,;::ir ;nHl ,:,,n-,1j_ncj_nc1 E'Vi_,!,,,nc-c: f·ht:lt th,,
,·iti7.":'II~'. ~3!;-11:,-?Jll'?nts WPJ.'D m;ide wi_t-1, l'.!l~H,,rJ.edoe ( \ r hiitl, ,,,)1:lu:-,~;
il.i.:c:1_·,.:,:Flt'.J "( 11,,·,ir r:~iJ;~jt:: _i_r: lf:",.·,~,·1}_-t,s--,."~11,c:-re th'? l:_1_:nt!i·,,. r:!tl!~itv
nf: tho ,Jc,f<;•1vlant's st:1t-wH1C>JltS WrlS "'m,3!_-'?J.'f,3J_·· IJ.• t:h<:> ,·:111:sn ,,(
.-1,·ti1'11 /i.< 0 • li.bel ond rk,fdmat.i•~•11 su.it·s) 1:;) give, •·ifi:::: 0 1/,r~ wl,,,
wo1:-•· ,J,,f.c,,11!;>11t~~ in ;1nv ::JJ\PT' f;Cl_ti_t fn1111 1 l t:n Ja,:::k mc,1·i_t_ ! 1 ,i,,ht h,,:,/
!,, , .... ,.,,,..-,,1 .')t:-t.,.:,rncxy'c:: ,,,,.,,:: i'·lJl_(I ,.,_,:c:t:c::, with pun.i.t:j_vc, ·l.r:1111,19Ps
;i\;;Ji JaJ.,J,:c, npr_q1 cl •~Jin,.,:i n,J t:.h0t· t-_h 0 std_t:. was ",,·ommsrv:/~,:1 n1,·
,·,-,ntin11(-"l fur t:J1e snl_c ,,f
l''L':f'C'S'?
.
IF:n:-assinq,-
.intim_i,·1I/,,t.i1111,
1•1tni:~hi11•,1 nJ' r1l.h<;~rwii~n m:,l i 1 ·i_,·,nsl_ 0: i_nhi_l,i_t_in,1 the, f:1:<~D o:,,,,·i::•·
I •
,}I f~J"'·'';''.:lt, t":,titi,,n ,_,,, ;i:-_::~.:-;r}t·j::,!·i,~n 1.i~Jhts;:• -3.n,_·t (3~ '('''J"''''
,·11nrt:~ t_ _ n hc,,:1_1· rn<::,t.i.•~'''~" 1.,, di_srni.~~-'' ,_,_,· f:•:>1: sunimary J11cl,_p:1~11it· i.n .,
'.il.Al'P ~,,,it '~'ll c.Hl ('XJ)<:"ditc~d b,:\s.i.s c::,:,, that r·_i_tizens ax 0 ll'" •ih:;1•.1·1•.·-d
1i,-Duoh ,,n,t1·c:1ct,,:d c•nn:t p1- .. :eedi_1)t,,~.
'rh.i '.'' hi l l that ensures

c_it_:i,-;:•~11s may 1.:-a..i.se l_c~•jLt.i.mal•:
concerns to 0uth01: i-t- iss without the prc,s1/,er:1
qovernmental ,. (
t""'taliat i 1.m. Not.hing in this biJl prevents bus.i.11ess;,/,s ,,,111
pucsuing any other avRn~es presently available to them, .i.1/v::lwli.11q
,. I is put. i 11 (J the c i t i z !':'! n cont:.c~nt.i.ons in permit and, nt h~:1.·
- j
9ov1:Jrnmental hearings.
I
these reasons,
Fc,1 c..,,,,sumer Protection
;'l'l''·"""';iJ ,it· l\. 4 299.
July 31, 1992
Elizabeth D. Moore
State Capitol
Albany, New York
Dear Ms. Moore:
Re: ASSEMBLY 12138-A

TEN DAY BILL
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
Thank you for providinq us with th(= opportunity to review and comment
on the above-listed Ten Day Bill which would amend the Canal Law, the
Public Authorities Law and the State Finance Law, in relation to expanding
the powers and duties of the New York State Thruway Authority, transferring
jurisdiction over the New York State Canal System (Canal System) to the
Thruway Authority, creating the New York State Canal Recreationway
Commission, and creating a New York State Canal System Development Fund,
and to repeal certctin provisions of the Canal Law and the Public
Authorities Law relating thereto.
Since it was established in 1967, this Department has been responsible

for the operation and maintenance of the Canal System and has worked with
great effort to operate, enhance and preserve the Canal System in times of
ever more scarce State resources. During the past 50 years, the use of the
Can:!. System tia:= grad1..:ally c!1anged from ~ne ser"."ing as a majcr com."!'!erci al
artery, to one serving recreation and tourism-relatiad activities. The
recently approved Constitutional Amendrr.e:nt, whlch authorized leasing of
canal property and charging tolls for its use, heralds a new era for the
Canal System and the subject bill will provide the stimulus for the
creation of a world class recreationway. This will result in the
enhancement of the economy and tlie betterment of communities along the
Canal System and the enhancement of the historic, environmental, scenic and
recreational aspects of the 524 mile Ca.nal System. The time for change in
mission for this Waterway has arrived. The New York State Thruway
Authority has a strong record of accomplishment and the location of its
existing facilities makes it well-suited to undertake this responsibility.
The bill provides for this new mission as well as the financing which is
neceasary to preaerve and enhance the natural beauty and environmental
ntegrity of the Canal system.
Accordingly, it is our strong recommendation that the Governor approve
Assembly 12138-A.
Sincerely yours,
, .,- t ~:::
I . _t·l.1.,~·
,,
I"
-·~J;"-.
ROBERT A. iR.YB~K
Associate Attorney
Office of Legal Affairs
Al2138A
000030
New York State Housing Finance 1\gency
July 21, 1992
Hen. Elizabeth D. Moore

Executive Chamber
State Capitol
Re: Assembly Bill 4299
We have no recommendation with respect to this bill.
Sincerely,
'---)
::,~hompson
Counsel
cc: Legislation File

Bobby Berlin
207211LX
OOOOZ31
I
I
MEMORANDUM FOR THE GOVERNOR
RE: Assembly 4299
This bill amends the Civil Rights Law and the Civil Practice Law and Rules
with regard to legal actions "involving public petition and participation". Its
purpose, according to the legislative findings, is to prevent lawsuits and the
threat of lawsuits from being "used as a means of harassing, intimidating or
punishing" those "who have involved themselv~s in public affairs."
The bill, which would take effect on January 1, 1993, creates a new type
of legal action called an "action involving public petition and participation".
It then sets forth specific rules governing such an action, which rules are
different from those governing other legal actions.
This new type of action is one brought by a "public applicant or

permittee," which is defined as "any person who has applied for or obtained
a permit, zoning change, lease, license, certificate or other entitlement for use
or permission to act from any government body, or any person with an
interest, connection or affiliation with such person that is materially related
to such application or permission." An action brought by such a plaintift1
involves "public petition and participation" when it is "materially related to any
efforts of the defendant to report on, comment on, rule on, challenge or
oppose such application or permission."
The bill sets forth the special rules governing these types of actions. First,
section 2, adding a new section 70-a to the Civil Rights Law, authorizes
sanctions against a plaintiff who brings such an action in certain
circumstances. If the action is without a "substantial basis in fact and law
and could not be supported by a substantial argument for the extension,
modification or reversal of existing law", the defendant who is being sued
may recover costs and attorneys' fP.es. In addition, if a court finds that the
suit was brought for the purpose of "harassing, intimidating, punishing or
otherwise maliciously inhibiting the free exercise of speech, petition or
association rights", other compensatory damages beyond costs and attorneys'
fees may be awarded. If any of these factors is found to be the sole purpose
of the suit, punitive damages may also be awarded.
1Plaintiff is used here, as in the CPLR, to mean a person

asserting a claim, cross claim or counterclaim.
MEMORANDUM TO THE GOVER!;OR 2
RE: A. 4299
Secondly, section 3 of the bill, which adds a new section 76-a to the Civil
Rights Law, provides that a plaintiff, to recover damages in such an action,
must prove by clear and convincing evidence that any communication giving
rise to the action was. made "with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless
disregard of whether it was false, where the truth or falsity of such
communication is material to the cause of action at issue."
lastly, sections 4 and 5 of the bill, which amend sections 3211 and 3212
of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, provide for special rules for motion
practice in these types of cases. A motion to dismiss or a motion for
summary judgment brought by a defendant seeking the protection given by
the special rules governing these actions must be granted unless the plaintiff
can demonstrate that the claim has "a substantial basis in law" (in the case
of a motion to dismiss) or a substantial basis in fact and law" (in the case
of a motion for summary judgment}, or is supported by a substantial
argument for an extension, modification C" reversal of existing law." The
courts are directed to grant a preference in the hearing of such a motion.
The type of lawsuit this bill addresses has become known as a SLAPP suit,
an acronym for "strategic lawsuit against public participation." In recent years
SLAPP suits have been brought with increasin~ frequency with the clear
purpose of discouraging potential opponents from involving tilemselves in a
public debate in which the person initiating the SLAPP suit has a stake. For
example, an applicant for a government permit may file baseless claims of
libel or harassment against a citizen who protests the granting of the permit,
or a plaintiff may file such claims against someone who, in the exercise of his
or her first amendment rights . speaks out against the plaintiff.
Although such a suit is rarely successful on the merits, it succeeds in its

real purpose of stifling public debate on the issue in question. The defendant
in such an action is forced to hire an attorney and incur potentially great costs
in the defense of the action. Frequently. the victims of these SLAPP suits
suffer physical and psychological effects from the anxiety that comes from
being named as a defendant in a case sometimes claiming millions of dollars
in money damages.
Over the past several years, I and my staff have been greatly troubled by
the growing use of SLAPP suits. We have been particularly concerned about
the use of this insidious tactic in stifling citizen initiative in cases where there
is a significant disparity in the respective resources of the parties involved,
which is most often the case. and in areas such as environmental protection,
in which public involvement is a critical part of the process.
Recently, a decision by the Westchester County Supreme Court made a

very strong statement against SLAPP suits. In this case, a real estate
developer used the courts to contest the tax exempt status of the Nature
Conservancy. The Court concluded that the purpose of the suit was clearly
to harass this environmental organization for its lawful challenge to a
MEMORANDu'.·1 T0 3
RE: A. 4 2 s,s,
subdivision. My office submitted an amicus brief in support of the Court's

order of sanctions against the plaintiff.
The decisiun in this case, Gordon v. Marrone, Index #18554190, Judge

Colabella, dated April 13, 1992, is particularly important on the issue of
sanctions. The Court deplored the fact that under current court rules it could
only penalize the SLAPP plaintiff up to $10,000, clearly less than the actual
costs to the SLAPP defendant. Thi~ case underscores the need for legislation
in this area.
However, an appropriate legislative solution to the problems raised by

SLAPP suits is not easy. Any bill nwst be carefully drafted so as to
discourage SLAPP suits while. at the same time, not acting as an obstacle to
the commencement of legitimate lawsuits. Distinguishing between the two
can be difficult
This bill attempts to prevent th•: nsk of as being applied too broadly by
limiting its application w actions · materially rPlated" to a governmental
application submitted by the plaintiff. This should effectively prevent its being
used to limit legitimate legal actions. but it also means that certair. SLAPP
suits will not be covered. For example, a SLAPP suit brought by a landlord
against a tenants' organi1zation protesting housing conditions will not be
covered by the bill if it do,es not relate to a governmental application filed by
the landlord. Givt~n the risk of being overbroad, this bill represents a good
first step. Whether plaintiifs wiil be able to avoid its provisions by suing over
matters not related to a governmental application remains to be seen.
The value of the bill will depend. to a large extent, on its interpretation by
the courts. It contains many new definitions, terms and standards which the
courts will have to consttrue. For example, the courts can limit plaintiffs'
ability to avoid the provi,sions of the statute if they hold that any suit is
.. materially related" to an application if it is meant to be retaliatory or would
otherwise not have been brought were it not for the act of public participation.
Especially important is how the courts wm treat the new motion practice.
Whether or not a motion falls within the special provisions of the bill,
which are designed to quickly teuninate SLAPP suits, depends upon whether
the action to which it is addressed faHs within the bill's provisions. If a court
were to hold an extensive hearing to determine whether an action is one
"involving public petition and participation" before deciding a motion to
dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, the bill's purposes will have been
defeated. Hopefully, courts wiH construe the bill's complex language in a
manner consistent with its objectives.
In addition. the bill does not cover actions seeking only injunctive relief.
Whether this proves to be a problem remains to be seen.
MEMORANDUM TO Tl!C COVERtl(lP 4
RE: A. 4 29')
While this bill is clearly not a panacea to the problems created by SLAPP
suits, it does represent the Legislature's first attempt to deal with this type of
misuse of the courts. Given the difficulties of drafting a workable bill, this
bill should be permitted to be tested. With what I believe should be the
appropriate construction of the bill by the courts, it could be effective. To the
extent that problems continue, additional corrective legislation can be enacted
in the future,
For tile reasons stated above, I urge approval of the 1:-ill.
Dated, July 27, 1992
Fl£:spectfully sutimitted,
.~u-
lOBERT AB AMS
AlTORNEY GENERAL
LANGDON MARSH,
July 23, 1992
TO: Elizabeth D. Moore,

At you1 request, we submit the tallowing comments on A.4299

which t1at; pas:,ed both rious,_;s and has b<,en de 1 i vered to the
Governor.
Purpost•: Tt11~; bill protect itizens ~ha participate in public

dffc1irs, inc]uding requ atory proceedings, against lawsuits
brought by regulated rt es n retaliation against the citizens'
participation.
Discussion: This ley slc1tion provides that the burden is on the

applicant 01· permittee to demonstrate that a lawsuit, which is
instituted against persons as a result of their participation in
a governmental proceeding, has a "substantial" basis in fact and
law in order to avoid dismissal of an action against such
persons. On the other hand, in order to establish a right to
attorney's fees, the defendants in such a suit must bear the
burden of demonstrating that the lawsuit is without substantial
basis. Similar shifts in the burden of proof are set forth for
the recovery of compensatory damages and punitive damages. This
bill is a reasonable approach to address the increasingly
frequent practice by the regulated community to bringing "SLAPP"
suits in an effort to inhibit public input into the regulatory
pn.1cesses.
R.ecomrnendation: Approval.
e Deputy Commissioner
l..,,,~ -;~;~--C
J.•• 7 :<9".-B
,, . C:f:J:--l•.
ST ATE OF NEW YORK
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
~AW~ENCE KUN,''~
GC~-Eli,1,~ CO..J4S£l~
,July 6, 1992

CoJnsel to the Governor
Executive Chamber
State Capitol
Re: An Act to amend the Civil Rights Law

and the Civil Practice Law and Rules
in relation to actions involving
p,. •. 4299
Dear Ms. Moore:
Thank you for your request to comment on the above-

referenced legislation. The bill is not Division sponsored and we
take no position with respect to it.
Lawrence Kunin
General Counel
Ll</CJD
.
;,*~:::_::.~~.!.~
.
'•:•
'
. UNIFltlJ COURT SYSTEM
A
J
j
·~. ,,,.~ ;-,,,,'
»,;,,,~--:;--<,;·-;:-;-<,:;·,~/
MICHAEL COt ODNEf?
July 20, 1992

Executive Chamber
State Capitol
Re: Assembly 4299
Dear Ms. Moore:
Thank you for requesting the comments of thjs Office on

the above-referenced measure, which would amend the Civil Rights
Law and CPLR in relation to lawsuits brought against persons who
contest applications for governmental permits or licenses.
In sum, this medsure would:
• require that, before damages may be recovered in an

action "involving public petition and participation"
(defined generally as one brought .by a person who has
sought some governmental permission or entitlement against
a defendant who, in some material way, commented upon,
ruled upon or challenged such person's efforts), plaintiff
must establish actual malice by clear and convincing
evidence.
• set certain standards for obtaining costs and

attorney's fees and compensatory and punitive damages in
actions, e·tc., brought against persons who commence ac-
tions involving public petition and participation.
• amend the CPLR to revise the standards for obtaining

dismissal or summary judgment in actions involving public
petition and participation. Under the revision, motions
for such relief must be granted unless the parties con-
testing them "[demonstrate] that the action, claim, cross
claim or counterclaim has a substantial basis in fact or
is supported by a substantial argument for an extension,
modification or reversal of existing law". Also, this
measure would create a court calendar preference for such
motions.
Hon. Eliz,abeth D. Moore
Page 2
July 20, 1992
This Office has no objection to the policy at the heart of

this measure 1 nor for the most part, to its procedural provi-
sions. Our sole concern goes to so much of this measure as
treats dismissal and summary judgment motions in public petition
and participation actions. First, we do not understand how the
standard for determination fixed by this measure can be applied
to summary judgment motions. Such motions, by their nature, are
procedural vehicles for enabling courts to dispose of actions
wherein the disputes go to legal, not factual questions. Of what
significance can it be to such a motion, then, that the claim to
which it is directed has "a substantial basis i:1 fact"? Or, for
that matter, that the claim "is supported by a substantial
argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing
law".
Second, we note that motions for su.mnary judgment may be

brou,ght either by a claimant. or one resisc.ing his or her claim,
This measure, however,. is drawn to anticipate only motions
brought by the latter.
We also are discomfited by the court calendar preference

this measure would accord dismissal and summary judgment motions
in public petition and participation actions. It has long been
our position that, both legally and practically, the availability
of calendar preferences should be left to the courts to resolve.
To do otherwise is to invite the disorder and confusion that can
ensue where multiple statutes accord preferences to a variety of
cases - with no guidance for courts to determine which takes
precedence when they compete.
Very truly yours,
/ybs Michael Colodner
In other words, there is no provision for the situation

whereby a claimant in an action involving public petition and
participation brings a motion for summary judgment on his or her
own claim. As the measure is written, all the claimant need do
i.s establish the nature of the claim, which is then to be granted
unless the person resisting the 1110tion "demonstrates that the
action . ,. . has a substantial basis in fact and law ... " - which
makes no sense since such person seeks to defeat the claim.
<JC0040
- -- - ~
'-:;_ t. - - - - ,.,.,._
~~--· -
1992
-•,, ,....,, ... ,, -

Honorable ~3r10 ~- - ,.,.'-,,,' ""-
Governor
State of ~e~ Io~K
Executive Cha~ber
State Capitol
Albany, NY 1222~
I a::: ',u: 1 ting t :-; c:iq:,n::ss ~z st rcng s ~pi:;o:::-t: and reco:::inend that
i·c,u sign ir.tc· la·•• A.12133-A, :r~e "Thn.r~·3:r· 2GO0" bill. The bill
will procote econcc1c devclcp:ent in Ge~ ¥erk State by
authorizing the Thruway Autho~ity ~o operate and develop the New
York Canul system and to undertake and p3rticipate in three
additional transportation related projects across the state.
Staff frcra the Executive Cha~ber :lnd the Thruway Authority

have been working closely since January ~hen you and I first
discussed this concept. I am pleased to say that throughout the
negotiatic~s with the Legislature, the essential elements of the
concept were preserved in this bill. The Thruway is grateful for
your vision and strong leadership in the evoluticn of Thruway
2000. ~hile Governor De-ey had an original vision for the
thruway. your signature will set us on a ne;.; course. At the
same time we will not diminish our co!!h~itment to our principal
and abiding mission -- operating and maintaining the Thruway
system at a high level of safety and service.
The Authority is poised and ready to cove on each new

element in the legislation. If the bill is enacted, the
Water.ays Division of the Departaent of Transportation will move
to the Authority. We have also prepared the docu~ents to secure
the necessary financing for the 1992 and 1993 expenditures required
for this program. In addition, we are recruiting a few key staff
p@ople that would bring to the ag~ncy economic development as well
as transportation and land use planning expertise to augment an
already diverse and capable staff. The recruitment of women and
minorities will receive emphasis.
The bill provides for the Canal Recreationway Commission to
play a strong advisory role in many matters relating to canal
planning, operation, maintenance, and development. We look
forward to the appointment of and to working with the Commission.
Our first duty will be to preserve the pristine beauty,

ecological integrity, and marvelous history of this unique part
of New York's heritage. Any development will reflect those
values.
The Authority's financial plan to implement the initiative

represents a good balance of pay-as-you-go for operating and
capital expenses and debt financing for a significant portion of
our reconstruction and economic develoonent efforts in the future.
We also believe that the plan represents appropriate utilization
of our financial resources without straining our financial capacity.
Lastly, the transition of canal operations to the Authority

as soon as possible will result in addressing the "up to $20
million" reimbursement aspect of the bill in two separate parts.
Most of the $20 million will represent our assuming this
expenditure soon and thus relieving the 1992/1993 canal
appropriation. The complementary portion would represent a
smaller amount as a cash reimbursement on March 31, 1993.
In closing, Jane Starosciak, the staff and I are very

excited about this ne~ Thruway role. We strongly urge you to
sign the bill into law and put in place a new direction for the
New York State Thruway Authority.
pEW yoak publtc INTEREST RESEARCh GRotJP, INC.
¾:184 Washington Avenue • Albany. NY 12210 • 518-436-0876 • FAX 518-432-6178
ALBA.~-.,-. BtNGHAMTCr~ HUfFALO CORTL~ID L<:>NG !SLA!':0 r;f..•; p:..a_TZ NF,~ '•'OAK Cffi, OSW'EGC PUf;{.:~.ASf & s~;:.:;.cv..:::
Governor '.\1ario Cuomo

Capitol Building
\ihany. :'-.:.Y. l:!:!24
RE: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF S.5441 / A.4299
\
i -., nk w urge nmr appnn al u! S.544L :\.-1299 which will give Lhe public protection from
,,::c.ril•::-,se:, ,1r de, eiopers ,vho file iaw,;uits designed tu stifie citizen activism. All too ofteP.
tnJ-':'inesses or de,·e!opers abuse the iegal system by suing a citizen or community group solely for
: :,c purpose of harassing or intimidating them because the citizen(s) may have criticized or opposed
,, :HHhing d, veiopment. zoning change. garbage incinerator. or other project. These lawsuits are
i·.;_n ;.t:--- '',[ .·\l,t•" --.uit~. dr ~tr;;1~.,.~i- i {!\,\~d~i-~ :\gain~t l}ub1i,, l)arti(_·ipation.
• 1
·• ,· .. •. i 'iS~i :1·-- r "" \ :ll'- ,·; ,,; ·._ "' !)eun~r µrulr,,-or,- !ound that hundreds of these SLAPP
,:> .,:,· ,, ,,.,:c.:,: :,,tt ,,•:i-., H.J.- , ,:,,· •; "': • ,., ,.; , tH·i:: a,\ .,i,.Pd dv\,·ioµnienr and zoning changes. and
,: I.,·:, ::.\, , , -,; [1: uw, -, ,, ra:,gn,g : r,m , , ·:"'"; f,:ub:cL,,". ~u gariJage incinerators, LO faulty products.
\\: :.,· r.,"r,·- "l ..:\I 'I' >ll!,> :,,H·i.s•': l1,i' •·iuzer: st_itemeuts about a project or permit application
, <:< <,,,Hlt·, , ,: liLt·i, mu.~: dH" uiecrni.•,;,,ed because they are found to lack merit or basis in law.
·1 ,,: ,,,,.n it r!!,· h,\-.suits are thrown ma uf court. they often succeed in achieving their goal of
•' ;fi :re.:_ pi::1li•· p,;r; :,·ip,n Hm and ,-i, izl'n imoh ement in thP dt:>cision-making process. Any individual
• •• _,.,,,. :c1U1Hi \\,it,id tw ,ttU:,t,,d b,.· tlw p:-osµt·•.t of a multi-million dollar lawsuit from
;,;,,,:,:- .. , d,·\ •·!up,,; ,n:w-,'. ._,, ,, :r1dr1\ prufl•:--:,ioriai attorneys and substantial financial
•·",,.r, ,-- ,n,,,·qw·nti·.. ttw ,·rn•.T.:.cri,-,, ur '->i..-\Pl' ,jJil~ "" .i ,a,:ti•· hY den~lopers and other,; ha"
Ir: :--tiun. SL-\PP suits an::· typicaliy frivolous, but they give an evil, modern day twist to the
l >,I\ id .ind Goliath story. They are a slap in the face to democracy and the fundamental rights of
.-i, izt·ns am community grnups to speak out for what they believe is right or wrong. Approval of
this bill, ho.n~ver. would provide essential protections to individuals who may be faced with the
,,:o~p,·, t ,;, a ~L.-\PP suit. lt \\OUid reston· a sense of confidence to the public to voice their
:>: fiH! , n :,·1·!n~ ahoU! tht>ir tw;dth. ,•nyiromm·nt. pn,pert:,·, and neighborhoods. \:YPIRG urge,:
. .i, ;qlpt m ai of this impnrt <1n1 hi!'.
·,"~::~-~
hL,;1 11,H ,ii'!
;
I ,·gislat i\ ,. Dired.or
OC0043
The tie-ii Yc:rk Pubhc lnteres.t Aes.@atC:.h Gr,';tip !nc (NYP:f;:Gl \:S a nc,t-t0,r-pr.::st<t. nG>f".C-drtl'San res.ear::~, and ads.-c~a•:y c,,.gan;zati-,::n estabhshed, dtfe.Gt-ed and support~ by ~w ·¥\,rk Stdtti
cciiege and urwversit-, stu,dents tfl'PiNG's staff ct !a~ye,s. reseatc.he,s, sc~ntitSts and orgaruzers ¥-•)fks w>th students a.~ other citizens_ d @ ~ c1t{zem.hip skills and shapng pubht
p:)#Cy Envirz':EN'Twntal pte5ef'Yattcn, consume, prdectton, en@t9i. tscal re--s.oons.b~y ~!Cai ref◊t'.":'1_ and ~oc.al tuSttee are NYP!AG';j p:inc~ are-as of c.:,nce,-n
0 r•'Y';t~a-cr '~:>iC~.1 ;::.dZf!f
,t ,:-,, ','',',,' '
NYPIIG su pp(Z)R.Ts
< ,, ,' ' , ~\'::} ' '\,'":
.egisl.ative Memorandum No. 89-1992 Contact: Steve Romalewski Phone:(516)673-5536
IN THE SENATE, S.5441. INTRODUCED BY SENATOR l\1ARCHI

A,,~ ACT to amend the civil rights law and the civil practice Jaw a.nd rules, in
involving public petition and participation
Summary of Provjsio,m
This bill would require that a person who has applied for or obtained a pennit for a project, and
who has brought an action against a citizen who has commented on or criticized that project, to
show that the citizen knew his/her statements were false, or made with "reckless disregard" for
the truth, in order to win damages from the citizen. The bill would also give citizens who were
sued in such an action that was found to lack merit the ability to countersue to recover attorney's
fees and coHs. Punitive damages could also be recovered by the citizen if the action was
intended solely to harass, intimidate, or otherwise inhibit the free speech of the citizen. Finally,
the bill would require courts to hear any such action on an expedited basis.
Slalf.ment in SUDDQCt
All ioo often, businesses or developers abuse the legal sys:em by suing a citizen or community
·roup solely for the purpose of harassing or intimidating them because the citizen(s) may have
:nticized or opposed a hot:s:ng de, e!oprn~r.t, zoning change. g:1roage incinerator, or or.her
project. These lawsuits are kno·.rn as "SLAPP" suits, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation.
A survey conducted in 1989 by two liniversity of Denver professors found that hundreds of these
SLAPP actions are brought nationwide. One quarter of them Ul'- olved development and zoning
changes, and others involved projects ranging from tenant problems, to garbage incinerators, to
faulty products and services.
\\'bile many SLAPP suits allege that citizen statements abcut a project or permit application
constitute slander or libel. most are dismissed because thev are found to lack merit or basis in
law. Yet even if the lawsuits are thrown out of court, they often succeed in achieving their goal
of stifling public participation and citizen involvement in the der:ision-mak.ing process. Any
individual or local civic association would be daunted by the prospect of a multi-million dollar
lawsuit from a major company or developer armed with professir:-;-;.J attorneys and substantial
financial resources. Consequently, the emergence of SLAPP suits as a tactic by developers and
others has caused concerned citizens to think twice about even simply commenting on proposed
projects that may have major impacts on their community.
In short, SLAPP suits are typically frivolous, but they give an evil, modem day twist r.o the
David and Goliath story. They are a slap in the face to demo-..~racv and the fundamental rights of
ci~ze~s and community groups to speak out for what they believe is right or wrong. Passage of
this bill. however, would provide essential protections to individuals who may be faced with the
pro~pect of a SL-\PP suit. It would restore a sense of confidence to the public to voice their
·•1st1fied concerns about their health, environment, property, and neighborhoods.
,-.;YPIRG strongly urges you to support passage of S.5441.
w York P,·'' r,.

• ~~ Washington Avenue • Albany, ~!.Y. • (518) 436-0876
I
SIERRA CLUB ATLANTIC CHAPTEA
Dr. Marian H. Rose• 9 Old Corner Road, Bedford, N.Y 10506
To: Senator Manfred Ohrenstein

From: Marian H. Rose
Conservation Co-Chair, Sierra Club - Atlantic Chapter
Re: Senate bill S.5441, Senator Marchi's "$LAPP suit" bill
Date: 6/17/92
Senator Marchi's bill #5441, trt=1 so-called "$LAPP suit' bill, has recently been
passed through the Codes Committee and Is now in the Rules Committee.
Re 1ntrod0ced this year by Asse,nb:yman Bianchi, it passed the Assembly

w,tho~t a single dissenting vote.
The S,erra c:iJb, both at t~e nat,onal a0d at the cliap~er !evais, has long stood in
opposition to SLAPP suits In this we are not alone. lrcreasingly, citizens from
a!I over the U S a~e oppcsir'g these suits that aro none o:her than ill-disguised
assaults on a c;tizeri s First P.,rncndrnert rights.
We ask you to slanc by us in supporting S.5441, ard i'l ri;:is~en!ng its passage
through Rules so that it can be voted on before the encl of tt1is session.
On behalf of t~,e 40.000 members of tr:e Atlantic C'la;=ter of the Sierra Club, I
t.'1Sh to thank you 'or yoY help in this matter.
Sincerely yours f1
;!Vf ~· - <-...,~
Marian H. Rose, Cor.servafon Co-Ct1a1r
Sierra Club • Atiartic Ct1apter
JUN 1 9 1992
OC004S
C.A.M.l.
P.O. Box 751
Valley Stream, New York 11582
Se~ A+oR) b-bA~.

+ COi.A.~ + .1 ,.~/
.._,
JhA+ A~·e ~ OtJ.. ._JoiN6

ro \) T< ~A~ +o
\e.-lc· -tY\ L Ai-.)+i - .SL.Af p
.,.,.
h\\ - 5441. +o ·t\1~ 5e.1')A-fe..

'\oov- I;-o ✓• A Vo+e... Be-..fo\""e.
; ...., " •= ...
--
\d.-~o~'t"Nt'\e~f <. \J h~
~ t,J\ I\ r·, NO + *1e. Se.~1~+e..
;·'ti ~J~ne.:,
:._.)
0~ r hA~d.s ~ I
JUN 271992
WH y Aht- y OU. ! !U
~ <JU/t{ ;=-
'C-&ia'fl ~-,-
Assembly bill
whkil would
Panicipati~
damages and litigation costs.
or punishing indi\'iduals or
been the target of

.m~ from statements and
to l.md use deci.sions on
,.,..., ....,... "'.... by our organization.
we ha\'C incurred hundreds
of individuals and
including public
prOCC!i._~.
By aUowfog couns to apply
for dk! purpose of intimidating
and nk!aningful
Re~pectfoliy.
And\ Beets
Director of Gt~'emnk!nt Relations
99
lON f N
A 4 9
LAPP''
4 -4
in rder to
WHEREAS, upon an
nd 1 opposi on to ii
y ill No~ A-4299 and Senate
directed remit copies
r l
·rRtJNZO, Lo ti;: s~nator

New Y0rk tate ttice Building
ppauge, New York 788
THOMAS F, BARRAGA, tate Assemblyman

4 Udal Road
~est sl p, New York 1 795
JOHN L. BEHAN, Slate Assemblyman

.o. Drdwer 9001
Wainacott, New rk 11975 9001
r. WILLIA!-! BIANCHI, tat<? lHrnemblyman
228 Waverly Place
Patchogue, New York 11772
JOHN . COCHRANE, Slate Assemblyman

665 Deer Park Avenue
North Babylon, New York 11703
JAMES CONTE-;, State Assemblyman
1783 New York Avenu~ · ·
Muntlngt.{m. StatJ.on, Now .York 11743
r~Affl\{.:i:A'fl, .It,, ,Stat~ Att•llblyman

'flfOt,tiD];
ROBERT GAFFNEY, State Ai:,se~ribl yman
1227 Main Street
S;.;: te 301
Port Jefferson, New York 11777
PAUL£_ HARENBERG, State Assemblyman

85 Middle Country Road
Sayvilie, New York 11782
_,GSEPH SAWICKI, State As.-,emblyman

:01 Roanoke Avenue - Ruo~ 301
Riverhead, New York 11901
iWBERT SwEENEY, :;::.a:.f:: Assemb:!.y:r,a;-,

270-B North ~ell~ood Avenue
Lindenhurst, New York 11757
ROBERT C. <iERTZ, St.a ti! Assemblyman

5,J Route
5,t.;,;, te 20
ithtown, NY ~-787
EXHIBIT 3
Firefox https://nysl.ptfs.com/knowvation/app/consolidatedSearch/
Title
New York State bill jackets - L-1992-CH-0767
Alternative
Legislative bill jackets
Creator
New York (State). Executive Department
OCLC/NY ID
NY200060392
NYSL
All Government Collections
Collection
New York State Legislative Bill Jackets
Agency/Topic
1990s
Browse 4
1992
Browse 5
0701-800
Document ID
144991
Format
PDF
Permanent Link
https://nysl.ptfs.com/data/Library1/pdf/NY200060392_L-1992-CH-0767.pdf
- - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Language
English
Subject
Bills, Legislative--New York(State)--Periodicals ; Legislation--New York (State)--Periodicals
Publisher
Albany, N.Y. : New York State Library, 1905-
Rights
This document or image is provided for education and research purposes. Rights may be reserved.
Responsibility for securing permissions to distribute, publish, reproduce or use it in any way rests with
the user. For additional information, see the New York State Library's Copyright and Use Statement.
Type
Text
Date Loaded
10/08/2020
Meta Format
other
Direct Link
https://nysl.ptfs.com/awweb/pdfopener?md=1&did=144991
- - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Archive Link
https://nysl.ptfs.com/awweb/awarchive?item=144991
- - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 of 1 6/21/2021, 2:18 PM
EXHIBIT 4
SLAPP SUITS—COSTS AND FEES, COMPENSATORY..., 1992 Sess. Law News...
1992 Sess. Law News of N.Y. Ch. 767 (A. 4299) (McKINNEY'S)
McKINNEY'S 1992 SESSION LAW NEWS OF NEW YORK
215th Legislature
Additions are indicated by <<+ Text +>>; Deletions by <<- Text ->>
Changes in tables are made but not highlighted.
CHAPTER 767
A. 4299
SLAPP SUITS—COSTS AND FEES, COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES TO DEFENDANTS
Approved Aug. 3, 1992, effective as provided in section 6
AN ACT to amend the civil rights law and the civil practice law and rules, in relation to actions involving public petition
and participation
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
<< Note: NY CIV RTS § 70–a >>
§ 1. Legislative findings and purpose. The legislature hereby declares it to be the policy of the state that the rights of citizens to
participate freely in the public process must be safeguarded with great diligence. The laws of the state must provide the utmost
protection for the free exercise of speech, petition and association rights, particularly where such rights are exercised in a public
forum with respect to issues of public concern.
The legislature further finds that the threat of personal damages and litigation costs can be and has been used as a means of
harassing, intimidating or punishing individuals, unincorporated associations, not-for-profit corporations and others who have
involved themselves in public affairs.
§ 2. The civil rights law is amended by adding a new section 70–a to read as follows:
<< NY CIV RTS § 70–a >>
<<+§ 70–a. Actions involving public petition and participation; recovery of damages+>>
<<+1. A defendant in an action involving public petition and participation, as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of
section seventy-six-a of this article, may maintain an action, claim, cross claim or counterclaim to recover damages, including
costs and attorney's fees, from any person who commenced or continued such action; provided that:+>>
<<+(a) costs and attorney's fees may be recovered upon a demonstration that the action involving public petition and
participation was commenced or continued without a substantial basis in fact and law and could not be supported by a substantial
argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law;+>>
<<+(b) other compensatory damages may only be recovered upon an additional demonstration that the action involving public
petition and participation was commenced or continued for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, punishing or otherwise
maliciously inhibiting the free exercise of speech, petition or association rights; and+>>
<<+(c) punitive damages may only be recovered upon an additional demonstration that the action involving public petition and
participation was commenced or continued for the sole purpose of harassing, intimidating, punishing or otherwise maliciously
inhibiting the free exercise of speech, petition or association rights.+>>
WESTLAW © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

<<+2. The right to bring an action under this section can be waived only if it is waived specifically.+>>
<<+3. Nothing in this section shall affect or preclude the right of any party to any recovery otherwise authorized by common
law, or by statute, law or rule.+>>
§ 3. The civil rights law is amended by adding a new section 76–a to read as follows:
<< NY CIV RTS § 76–a >>
<<+§ 76–a. Actions involving public petition and participation; when actual malice to be proven+>>
<<+1. For purposes of this section:+>>

<<+(a) An “action involving public petition and participation” is an action, claim, cross claim or counterclaim for damages
that is brought by a public applicant or permittee, and is materially related to any efforts of the defendant to report on, comment
on, rule on, challenge or oppose such application or permission.+>>
<<+(b) “Public applicant or permittee” shall mean any person who has applied for or obtained a permit, zoning change, lease,
license, certificate or other entitlement for use or permission to act from any government body, or any person with an interest,
connection or affiliation with such person that is materially related to such application or permission.+>>
<<+(c) “Communication” shall mean any statement, claim, allegation in a proceeding, decision, protest, writing, argument,
contention or other expression.+>>
<<+(d) “Government body” shall mean any municipality, the state, any other political subdivision or agency of such, the
federal government, any public benefit corporation, or any public authority, board, or commission.+>>
<<+2. In an action involving public petition and participation, damages may only be recovered if the plaintiff, in addition to
all other necessary elements, shall have established by clear and convincing evidence that any communication which gives rise
to the action was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false, where the truth or falsity
of such communication is material to the cause of action at issue.+>>
<<+3. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any constitutional, statutory or common law protections of defendants
to actions involving public petition and participation.+>>
§ 4. Rule 3211 of the civil practice law and rules is amended by adding a new subdivision (g) to read as follows:
<< NY CPLR Rule 3211 >>
<<+(g) Standards for motions to dismiss in certain cases involving public petition and participation. A motion to dismiss based
on paragraph seven of subdivision (a) of this section, in which the moving party has demonstrated that the action, claim, cross
claim or counterclaim subject to the motion is an action involving public petition and participation as defined in paragraph (a)
of subdivision one of section seventy-six-a of the civil rights law, shall be granted unless the party responding to the motion
demonstrates that the cause of action has a substantial basis in law or is supported by a substantial argument for an extension,
modification or reversal of existing law. The court shall grant preference in the hearing of such motion.+>>
§ 5. Rule 3212 of the civil practice law and rules is amended by adding a new subdivision (h) to read as follows:
<<+(h) Standards for summary judgment in certain cases involving public petition and participation. A motion for summary
judgment, in which the moving party has demonstrated that the action, claim, cross claim or counterclaim subject to the motion
is an action involving public petition and participation, as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section seventy-six-a
of the civil rights law, shall be granted unless the party responding to the motion demonstrates that the action, claim, cross claim
or counterclaim has a substantial basis in fact and law or is supported by a substantial argument for an extension, modification
or reversal of existing law. The court shall grant preference in the hearing of such motion.+>>
<< Note: NY CPLR Rules 3211, 3212 >>
<< Note: NY CIV RTS §§ 70–a, 76–a >>

§ 6. This act shall take effect on the first day of January next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law, provided
that this act shall not affect any action, claim, cross claim or counterclaim commenced prior to the effective date of this act.
NY LEGIS 767 (1992)
End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

EXHIBIT 5
S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________
10594
I N A S S E M B L Y
June 7, 2012
___________
Introduced by COMMITTEE ON RULES -- (at request of M. of A. Weinstein)

-- read once and referred to the Committee on Judiciary
AN ACT to amend the civil rights law, in relation to actions involving

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1 Section 1. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 1 of section 70-a of the civil

2 rights law, as added by chapter 767 of the laws of 1992, is amended to
3 read as follows:
4 (a) costs and attorney's fees [may] SHALL be recovered upon a demon-
5 stration, INCLUDING AN ADJUDICATION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (G) OF RULE
6 THIRTY-TWO HUNDRED ELEVEN OR SUBDIVISION (H) OF RULE THIRTY-TWO HUNDRED
7 TWELVE OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES, that the action involving
8 public petition and participation was commenced or continued without a
9 substantial basis in fact and law and could not be supported by a
10 substantial argument for the extension, modification or reversal of
11 existing law;
12 S 2. Subdivision 1 of section 76-a of the civil rights law, as added
13 by chapter 767 of the laws of 1992, is amended to read as follows:
14 1. For purposes of this section:
15 (a) An "action involving public petition and participation" is [an
16 action,] A claim[, cross claim or counterclaim for damages that is
17 brought by a public applicant or permittee, and is materially related to
18 any efforts of the defendant to report on, comment on, rule on, chal-
19 lenge or oppose such application or permission] BASED UPON:
20 (1) ANY COMMUNICATION IN A PLACE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC OR A PUBLIC FORUM
21 IN CONNECTION WITH AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC CONCERN; OR
22 (2) ANY OTHER LAWFUL CONDUCT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE EXERCISE OF THE
23 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH IN CONNECTION WITH AN ISSUE OF
24 PUBLIC CONCERN, OR IN FURTHERANCE OF THE EXERCISE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
25 RIGHT OF PETITION.
26 (b) ["Public applicant or permittee" shall mean any person who has
27 applied for or obtained a permit, zoning change, lease, license, certif-
28 icate or other entitlement for use or permission to act from any govern-
EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets

[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD16156-02-2
A. 10594 2
1 ment body, or any person with an interest, connection or affiliation

2 with such person that is materially related to such application or
3 permission] "CLAIM" INCLUDES ANY LAWSUIT, CAUSE OF ACTION, CROSS-CLAIM,
4 COUNTERCLAIM, OR OTHER JUDICIAL PLEADING OR FILING REQUESTING RELIEF.
5 (c) "Communication" shall mean any statement, claim, allegation in a
6 proceeding, decision, protest, writing, argument, contention or other
7 expression.
8 [(d) "Government body" shall mean any municipality, the state, any
9 other political subdivision or agency of such, the federal government,
10 any public benefit corporation, or any public authority, board, or
11 commission.]
12 S 3. This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to actions
13 commenced on or after such date.
EXHIBIT 6
________________________________________________________________________
856
2013-2014 Regular Sessions
I N A S S E M B L Y
(PREFILED)
January 9, 2013
___________
Introduced by M. of A. WEINSTEIN -- read once and referred to the

Committee on Judiciary


3 read as follows:
11 existing law;

LBD03691-01-3
A. 856 2

12 expression.
16 commission.]
EXHIBIT 7
________________________________________________________________________
7280
I N S E N A T E
May 9, 2014
___________
Introduced by Sen. ESPAILLAT -- read twice and ordered printed, and when
printed to be committed to the Committee on Codes


3 read as follows:
11 existing law;

LBD03691-01-3
S. 7280 2

7 expression.
11 commission.]
EXHIBIT 8
________________________________________________________________________
258
I N A S S E M B L Y
(PREFILED)
January 7, 2015
___________
Introduced by M. of A. WEINSTEIN, ABINANTI, LUPARDO -- read once and

referred to the Committee on Judiciary


3 read as follows:
11 existing law;

LBD00118-01-5
A. 258 2

12 expression.
16 commission.]
EXHIBIT 9
________________________________________________________________________
1638
I N S E N A T E
January 13, 2015

___________
Introduced by Sen. ESPAILLAT -- read twice and ordered printed, and when


3 read as follows:
11 existing law;

LBD00118-01-5
S. 1638 2
10 expression.
14 commission.]
EXHIBIT 10
STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
68
IN SENATE
(Prefiled)
January 4, 2017
___________
Introduced by Sen. HOYLMAN -- read twice and ordered printed, and when

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-
bly, do enact as follows:

3 read as follows:
4 (a) costs and attorney's fees [may] shall be recovered upon a demon-
5 stration, including an adjudication pursuant to subdivision (g) of rule
6 thirty-two hundred eleven or subdivision (h) of rule thirty-two hundred
7 twelve of the civil practice law and rules, that the action involving
11 existing law;
12 § 2. Subdivision 1 of section 76-a of the civil rights law, as added
16 action,] a claim[, cross claim or counterclaim for damages that is
19 lenge or oppose such application or permission] based upon:
20 (1) any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum
21 in connection with an issue of public concern; or
22 (2) any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the
23 constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets

LBD02678-01-7
S. 68 2
1 public concern, or in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional

2 right of petition.
8 permission] "Claim" includes any lawsuit, cause of action, cross-claim,
9 counterclaim, or other judicial pleading or filing requesting relief.
12 expression.
16 commission.]
17 § 3. This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to actions
EXHIBIT 11
STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
1413
IN ASSEMBLY
January 12, 2017
___________
Introduced by M. of A. WEINSTEIN, SEAWRIGHT, ABINANTI, LUPARDO, OTIS,

BLAKE -- read once and referred to the Committee on Judiciary


3 read as follows:
11 existing law;

LBD02678-01-7
A. 1413 2
10 expression.
14 commission.]
EXHIBIT 12
Senate and Assembly Majorities Advance Anti-SLAPP Legislation to Pr... https://nyassembly.gov/Press/files/20200722a.php
NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 22, 2020
Senate and Assembly Majorities Advance Anti-SLAPP

Legislation to Protect Free Speech
Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie today announced the
Senate and Assembly have passed legislation that offers legal protection to any individual or entity sued for
exercising their free speech rights. A “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” often referred to as a
“SLAPP”, is a tactic often employed by powerful interests that involves initiating a frivolous lawsuit intended to
silence free speech and public participation in our democratic process.
“New Yorkers’ voices must not be silenced by powerful interests and the super wealthy,” Majority Leader
Stewart-Cousins said. “SLAPP lawsuits that are employed to discourage free speech threaten our democracy
and work against the people of New York. I applaud Senator Hoylman for his work in championing this bill and
protecting the free speech of ALL New Yorkers.”
“SLAPP’s have the dangerous potential to censor the type of free speech that is fundamental to a free and
democratic society,” said Speaker Heastie. “This legislation will discourage these types of lawsuits and protect
the people and institutions that we depend on to be an informed public. I would also like to thank
Assemblymember Weinstein for her longtime tireless commitment to protecting free speech for all New
Yorkers.”
Senate bill sponsor Senator Brad Hoylman, said, “For decades, Donald Trump, his billionaire friends, large
corporations and other powerful forces have abused our legal system by attempting to harass, intimidate and
impoverish their critics with strategic lawsuits against public participation, or ‘SLAPP’ suits. This broken system
has led to journalists, consumer advocates, survivors of sexual abuse and others being dragged through the
courts on retaliatory legal challenges solely intended to silence them. Today, New York’s Democratic Majority
‘SLAPPs back’ with our new legislation (S.52A/A.5991A) that expands anti-SLAPP protections, thereby
strengthening First Amendment rights in New York State, the media capital of the world. I’m thrilled to see this
legislation pass the Senate today thanks to the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins
and alongside my Assembly colleague Helene Weinstein.”
“The dangerous message that these lawsuits send is that criticism will cost you,” said Assembly bill sponsor
Helene Weinstein. “Recent experience has shown that there are an increasing number of deep pocketed
individuals who have outrageously used New York’s court system as a means to harass New Yorkers who
have publicly disagreed with them. These lawsuits are started not because they have any chance of ultimate
success – they don’t – but to make sure that others don’t speak out publicly, for fear of being sued. It is clear
that the best remedy for this problem is to require those who bring these lawsuits to pay the legal fees and
costs of those who they have wrongfully sued, along with an expedited means for the courts to toss these
cases into the dustbin of history. I wish to express my appreciation to Speaker Heastie for his leadership and
support on this important issue, and I also wish to express my thanks to Senator Hoylman for so skillfully
1 of 2 4/12/2022, 2:29 PM
Senate and Assembly Majorities Advance Anti-SLAPP Legislation to Pr... https://nyassembly.gov/Press/files/20200722a.php
guiding the bill through the Senate.”
Today’s legislation will broaden New York’s existing anti-SLAPP statute by revising the definition of an “action
involving public petition and participation” to include a broader definition matters in the “public interest.” Current
law has been narrowly interpreted by the courts and typically limited to cases initiated by an individual or
business entity that is embroiled in controversies over a public application or permit. Under this bill, if a
defendant’s speech or activity falls under the protection of the statute, judges will have the ability to dispose of
these meritless claims quickly (S.52A/A.5991-A).
Too often, these SLAPP lawsuits are used to chill free speech, by threatening an individual or entity with
liability for personal damages, as well as having to hire a lawyer themselves. These types of threats often
incentivize self-censorship and thus stifle free speech. In addition to making dismissal of SLAPP suits less
difficult and prolonged, today’s legislation would also require that victims of SLAPP lawsuits receive an award
of costs and attorney’s fees, thus strongly discouraging those who attempt to chill free speech.
New York State Assembly

[ Welcome Page ] [ Press Releases]
2 of 2 4/12/2022, 2:29 PM
EXHIBIT 13
NY State Senate Bill S52A https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s52/amendment/a
Senate Bill S52A

SIGNED BY GOVERNOR
2019-2020 Legislative Session
Requires awarding of costs and attorney fees in frivolous action involving public petition
and participation
l) DOWNLOAD BILL TEXT PDF (HTTPS://LEGISLATION.NYSENATE.GOV/PDF/BILLS/2019/S52A)
SHARE THIS BILL
f
SPONSORED BY
Brad Hoy:lman (LSenatorsLbrad-

hoy:lman)
(D, WF) 27TH SENATE DISTRICT
ARCHIVE : LAST BILL STATUS VIA A5991 - SIGNED BY GOVERNOR
YOUR VOICE
DO YOU SUPPORT THIS BILL?
✓ AYE X NAY
BETA ⓘ (/citizen-guide/bill-alerts)
1 of 9 4/14/2022, 9:58 PM
GET STATUS ALERTS FOR S52A
EMAIL ADDRESS
ll
•
SUBSCRIBE
ACTIONS
VIEW ACTIONS (13)_ V
VOTES
VIEW VOTES V
BILL AMENDMENTS
CO-SPONSORS
Alessandra BiaggL(/Senators/alessandra-
biaggi).
(D, WF) 34TH SENATE DISTRICT
Gustavo Rivera (/Senators/gustavo-

John C. Liu (/Senatorsljohn-c-liu) -
(D) 11TH SENATE DISTRICT
rivera)_
(D, WF) 33RD SENATE DISTRICT
S52A (ACTIVE) - DETAILS
See Assembly Version of this Bill:

A5991 (/Legislation/bills/2019/a5991/amendment/a)
2 of 9 4/14/2022, 9:58 PM
Law Section:
Civil Rights Law
Laws Affected:
Amd §§70-a & 76-a, Civ Rts L; amd R3211, CPLR
Versions Introduced in Other Legislative Sessions:

2011-2012: A10594 (/Legislation/bills/2011/A10594)
2013-2014: 57280 (/Legislation/bills/2013/57280), A856 (/Legislation/bills/2013/A856)
2015-2016: 51638 (/Legislation/bills/2015/51638), A258 (/Legislation/bills/2015/A258)
2017-2018: S68 (/Legislation/bills/2017/S68)_, 52183 (/Legislation/bills/2017/S2183)_, A1413 (/Legislation/bills
/2017/A1413), A5292 (/Legislation/bills/2017/A5292)_
S52A (ACTIVE) - SUMMARY
Requires awarding of costs and attorney fees in frivolous actions involving public petition
and participation; expands application of actions involving public petition and participation.
S52A (ACTIVE) - SPONSOR MEMO
BILL NUMBER: S52a REVISED 07/22/2020
SPONSOR: HOYLMAN
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the civil rights law, in relation to actions involving

public petition and participation; and to amend the civil practice law
and rules, in relation to stay of proceedings
PURPOSE OF BILL:
The purpose of this bill is to extend the protection of New York's

current law regarding Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
("SLAPP suits"). The amendment will protect citizens' exercise of the
rights of free speech and petition about matters of public interest.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF BILL:
Section 1 of the bill would amend section 70-a of the Civil Rights Laws
to provide that costs and attorney's fees "shall be recovered upon a
demonstration that a SLAPP suit was commenced or continued without a
3 of 9 4/14/2022, 9:58 PM
substantial basis in fact or law and could not be supported by a

substantial argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law."
Section 2 of the bill would amend section 76-a of the Civil Rights Law
to define an "action involving public petition and participation" to
include a claim related to:
i. Any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in

connection with an issue of public interest; or ii. Any other lawful
conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of
free speech in connection with an issue of public interest, or in furth-
erance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition. The bill
also specifies that "public interest" should be broadly construed.
Section 3 of the bill contains a stay of discovery and pending hearings

or motions once a motion to dismiss a SLAPP action has been made pursu-
ant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7).
Section 4 specifies that the act shall take effect immediately.
JUSTIFICATION:
Section 76-a of the Civil Rights Law was originally enacted by the
Legislature to provide "the utmost protection for the free exercise or
speech, petition, and association rights, particularly where such rights
are exercised in a public forum with respect to issues of public
concern." L. 1992 Ch. 767. However, as drafted, and as narrowly inter-
preted by the courts, the application of Section 76-a has failed to
accomplish that objective. In practice, the current statute has been
strictly limited to cases initiated by persons or business entities that
are embroiled in controversies over a public application or permit,
usually in a real estate development situation. By revising the defi-
nition of an "action involving public petition and participation," this
amendment to Section 76-a will better advance the purposes that the
Legislature originally identified in enacting New York's anti-SLAPP law.
This is done by broadly widening the ambit of the law to include matters
of "public interest", which is to be broadly construed, e.g. anything

other than a "purely private matter".
Additionally, the principal remedy currently provided to victims of

SLAPP suits in New York is almost never actually imposed. The courts
have failed to use their discretionary power to award costs and attor-
ney's fees to a defendant found to have been victimized by actions
intended only to chill free speech. By an award of costs and fees, the
Legislature had originally intended to address "threat of personal
damages and litigation costs . . . as a means of harassing, intimidat-
ing, or punishing individuals, unincorporated associations, not-for-pro-
fit corporations and others who have involved themselves in public
affairs." L. 1992 Ch. 767. This amendment to Section 70-A of the Civil
Rights Law makes clear that a court "shall" impose an award of costs and
fees, but only if the court fords that the case has been initiated or
pursued in bad faith. Together, the two amendments will protect citizens
by encouraging only meritorious litigation.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2018:A.1413/S.68- A.Judi(ECS)/S.Codes
2018:Similar to:A.5292/S.2183- A.Cal/S.Codes
2017:Similar to:A.5292/S.2183- PA /S.Codes
2015-16: A.258/S.1638 -PA/S. Codes
2014: A.856/S.7280 - PA/S. Rules
2013: A.856 - PA
2012: A.10594 - A. Judi
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
4 of 9 4/14/2022, 9:58 PM
None.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately.
VIEWLESS A
S 5 2 A (ACTIVE) - BILL TEXT l) DOWNLOAD PDF (HTTPS://LEGISLATION.NYSENATE.GOV/PDF/BILLS/2019/S52A)
________________________________________________________________________
52--A
I N S E N A T E
(PREFILED)
January 9, 2019
___________
printed to be committed to the Committee on Codes -- recommitted to
the Committee on Codes in accordance with Senate Rule 6, sec. 8 --
committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and
recommitted to said committee

Section 1. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 1 of section 70-a of the civil

rights law, as added by chapter 767 of the laws of 1992, is amended to
read as follows:
(a) costs and attorney's fees [may] SHALL be recovered upon a demon-
stration, INCLUDING AN ADJUDICATION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (G) OF RULE
THIRTY-TWO HUNDRED ELEVEN OR SUBDIVISION (H) OF RULE THIRTY-TWO HUNDRED
TWELVE OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES, that the action involving
public petition and participation was commenced or continued without a
substantial basis in fact and law and could not be supported by a
substantial argument for the extension, modification or reversal of
existing law;
§ 2. Subdivision 1 of section 76-a of the civil rights law, as added
by chapter 767 of the laws of 1992, is amended to read as follows:
1. For purposes of this section:
(a) An "action involving public petition and participation" is [an
action,] A claim[, cross claim or counterclaim for damages that is
brought by a public applicant or permittee, and is materially related to
any efforts of the defendant to report on, comment on, rule on, chal-
lenge or oppose such application or permission] BASED UPON:
(1) ANY COMMUNICATION IN A PLACE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC OR A PUBLIC FORUM
IN CONNECTION WITH AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC INTEREST; OR
(2) ANY OTHER LAWFUL CONDUCT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE EXERCISE OF THE
5 of 9 4/14/2022, 9:58 PM
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH IN CONNECTION WITH AN ISSUE OF

LBD04075-04-0
S. 52--A 2
PUBLIC INTEREST, OR IN FURTHERANCE OF THE EXERCISE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHT OF PETITION.
(b) ["Public applicant or permittee" shall mean any person who has
applied for or obtained a permit, zoning change, lease, license, certif-
icate or other entitlement for use or permission to act from any govern-
ment body, or any person with an interest, connection or affiliation
with such person that is materially related to such application or
permission] "CLAIM" INCLUDES ANY LAWSUIT, CAUSE OF ACTION, CROSS-CLAIM,
COUNTERCLAIM, OR OTHER JUDICIAL PLEADING OR FILING REQUESTING RELIEF.
(c) "Communication" shall mean any statement, claim, allegation in a
proceeding, decision, protest, writing, argument, contention or other
expression.
[(d) "Government body" shall mean any municipality, the state, any
other political subdivision or agency of such, the federal government,
any public benefit corporation, or any public authority, board, or
commission.] (D) "PUBLIC INTEREST" SHALL BE CONSTRUED BROADLY, AND SHALL
MEAN ANY SUBJECT OTHER THAN A PURELY PRIVATE MATTER.
§ 3. Subdivision (g) of rule 3211 of the civil practice law and rules,
as added by chapter 767 of the laws of 1992, is amended to read as
follows:
(g) [Standards] STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND STANDARDS for motions to
dismiss in certain cases involving public petition and participation. 1.
A motion to dismiss based on paragraph seven of subdivision (a) of this
section, in which the moving party has demonstrated that the action,
claim, cross claim or counterclaim subject to the motion is an action
involving public petition and participation as defined in paragraph (a)
of subdivision one of section seventy-six-a of the civil rights law,
shall be granted unless the party responding to the motion demonstrates
that the cause of action has a substantial basis in law or is supported
by a substantial argument for an extension, modification or reversal of
existing law. The court shall grant preference in the hearing of such
motion.
2. IN MAKING ITS DETERMINATION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS MADE PURSUANT TO
PARAGRAPH ONE OF THIS SUBDIVISION, THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER THE PLEAD-
INGS, AND SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING AFFIDAVITS STATING THE FACTS UPON
WHICH THE ACTION OR DEFENSE IS BASED. NO DETERMINATION MADE BY THE COURT
ON A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT UNDER THIS SECTION, NOR THE FACT OF THAT
DETERMINATION, SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AT ANY LATER STAGE OF THE
CASE, OR IN ANY SUBSEQUENT ACTION, AND NO BURDEN OF PROOF OR DEGREE OF
PROOF OTHERWISE APPLICABLE SHALL BE AFFECTED BY THAT DETERMINATION IN
ANY LATER STAGE OF THE CASE OR IN ANY SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING.
3. ALL DISCOVERY, PENDING HEARINGS, AND MOTIONS IN THE ACTION SHALL BE
STAYED UPON THE FILING OF A MOTION MADE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. THE
STAY SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF THE ORDER RULING ON
THE MOTION. THE COURT, ON NOTICED MOTION AND UPON A SHOWING BY THE
NONMOVING PARTY, BY AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
THAT, FOR SPECIFIED REASONS, IT CANNOT PRESENT FACTS ESSENTIAL TO JUSTI-
FY ITS OPPOSITION, MAY ORDER THAT SPECIFIED DISCOVERY BE CONDUCTED
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS SUBDIVISION. SUCH DISCOVERY, IF GRANTED, SHALL BE
LIMITED TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOTION TO DISMISS.
4. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "COMPLAINT" INCLUDES "CROSS-COMP-
LAINT" AND "PETITION", "PLAINTIFF" INCLUDES "CROSS-COMPLAINANT" AND
"PETITIONER", AND "DEFENDANT" INCLUDES "CROSS-DEFENDANT" AND "RESPOND-
ENT."
§ 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
VIEWLESS A
6 of 9 4/14/2022, 9:58 PM
COMMENTS
Open Legislation is a forum for New York State legislation. All comments are subject to
review and community moderation is encouraged.
Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that

contain profanity, hate or toxic speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov
domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Attempts to intimidate and silence
contributors or deliberately deceive the public, including excessive or extraneous
posting/posts, or coordinated activity, are prohibited and may result in the temporary or
permanent banning of the user. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday
through Friday. By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify
you are over 13.
7 of 9 4/14/2022, 9:58 PM
Comments for this

Comments for this thread
thread are
are now closed
now closed X
2 Comments NYSenate.gov Public Website ~ Disqus' Privacy Policy • Login "'
(:) Favorite "# Tweet f Share Sort by Newest "'
• Joseph_Sanderson_1 • 2 years ago

This is an essential bill. I also urge the legislature to make clear that (a) the right to attorneys'
fees conferred by this provision is a substantive provision of New York law that applies in
federal court as well , and not merely a procedural aspect that applies only in state court; (b)
the costs and fees may be awarded in a separate action (for example, if a plaintiff voluntarily
dismisses after forcing the defendant to incur expenses defending themseles) ; and (c) the
legislature strongly encourages judges to exercise their discretion to stay discovery pending
a motion to dismiss in actions involving public participation (since downstate judges routinely
override the preference under the CPLR for stays of disclosure pending a motion to dismiss).
Additionally, it should be made clear in the statute that counterclaims and cross-claims are
covered too . Retaliatory counterclaims - for example, suing a plaintiff for libel for a statement
to the press about a lawsuit they filed to address issues such as discrimination - are all too
common and deter people from speaking up.
Share >
• Remy_Green • 3 years ago

This bill is an absolutely vital and necessary measure to protect ordinary citizens from well-
heeled attempts to cow criticism . For decades , judges within the system have lamented the
limits of existing mechanisms to make defendants who face frivolous SLAPPs whole on the
most basic level. See Gordon v Marrone, 155 Misc 2d 726 , 736 (Sup Ct, Westchester County
1992), aff'd Gordon v Marrone, 202 AD2d 104, 111 (2d Dept 1994 ), Iv. denied Gordon v
Marrone, 84 NY2d 813 (1995) ("Persons who have been outspoken on issues of public
importance targeted in such suits or who have witnessed such suits
will often choose in the future to stay silent. Short of a gun to the head , a greater threat to
First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined.").
Similarly, while commentators have advocated various workarounds , those solutions

necessarily fall short. See e.g., Marnie Stetson , Reforming Slapp Reform : New York's Anti-
Slapp Statute, 70 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1324 at 1345 (1995) (suggesting use of Section 130
"sanctions," but noting limitations on that mechanism); Gordon , 155 Misc. 2d at 737 "The
court's lament is its inability to award the Conservancy the full reasonable value of the
services of its attorneys and its expenses.").
As to§ 3 of the proposed bill , I ask that the following amendment be considered (second
see more
Share >
8 of 9 4/14/2022, 9:58 PM
9 of 9 4/14/2022, 9:58 PM
EXHIBIT 14
2019 New York Assembly Bill No. 5991, New York Two..., 2019 New York...
2019 NY A.B. 5991 (NS)

2019 New York Assembly Bill No. 5991, New York Two Hundred Forty-Third Legislative Session
NEW YORK COMMITTEE REPORT
TITLE: Requires awarding of costs and attorney fees in frivolous action involving public petition and participation.
VERSION: General
June 16, 2020
Version Date June 16, 2020
Weinstein, Helene E.
TEXT:
<BILL NUMBER:> A5991A
<SPONSOR:> Weinstein
<TITLE OF BILL>:
An act to amend the civil rights law, in relation to actions involving public petition and participation; and to amend the civil
practice law and rules, in relation to stay of proceedings
<PURPOSE OF BILL>:
The purpose of this bill is to extend the protection of New York's current law regarding Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation ("SLAPP suits"). The amendment will protect citizens' from frivolous litigation that is intended to silence their
exercise of the rights of free speech and petition about matters of public interest.
<SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF BILL>:
Section 1 of the bill would amend section 70-a of the Civil Rights Laws to provide that costs and attorney's fees "shall be
recovered upon a I demonstration that -la SLAPP suit was commenced or continued without a substantial basis in fact or law
and could not be supported by a substantial argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law."
Section 2 of the bill would amend section 76-a of the Civil Rights Law to define an "action involving public petition and
participation" to include a claim related to:
i. Any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; or
ii. Any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue
of public interest, or in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition.
The bill also specifies that "public interest" should be broadly construed.
Section 3 of the bill contains a stay of discovery and pending hearings or motions once a motion to dismiss a SLAPP action
has been made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).
<JUSTIFICATION>:

2019 New York Assembly Bill No. 5991, New York Two..., 2019 New York...
Section 76-a of the Civil Rights Law was originally enacted by the Legislature to provide "the utmost protection for the free
exercise or speech, petition, and association rights, particularly where such rights are exercised in a public forum with respect
to issues of public concern." L. 1992 Ch. 767. However, as drafted, and as narrowly interpreted by the courts, the application
of Section 76-a has failed to accomplish that objective. In practice, the current statute has been strictly limited to cases initiated
by persons or business entities that are embroiled in controversies over a public application or permit, usually in a real estate
development situation. Meanwhile, many frivolous lawsuits are filed each year that are calculated solely to silence free speech
and public participation, which do not specifically arise in the context of the public "permit" process. By revising the definition
of an "action involving public petition and participation," this amendment to Section 76-a will better advance the purposes that
the Legisla- ture originally identified in enacting New York's anti-SLAPP law. This is done by broadly widening the ambit of the
law to include matters of "public interest", which is to be broadly construed, e.g. anything other than a "purely private matter".
Additionally, the principal remedy currently provided to victims of SLAPP suits in New York is almost never actually imposed.
The courts have failed to use their discretionary power to award costs and attorney's fees to a defendant found to have been
victimized by a frivolous lawsuit intended only to chill free speech. By an award of costs and fees, the Legislature had originally
intended to address "threat of personal damages and litigation costs . . . as a means of harassing, intimidating, or punishing
individuals, unincorporated associations, not-for-profit corporations and others who have involved themselves in public affairs."
L. 1992 Ch. 767. This amendment to Section 70-A of the Civil Rights Law makes clear that a court "shall" impose an award of
costs and fees, but only if the court fords that the case has been initiated or pursued in bad faith. Together, the two amendments
will protect citizens against the threat -- and financial reality -- of abusive litigation, but will not discourage meritorious litigation.
Further, a mandatory award of attorney's fees is necessary to discourage SLAPP lawsuits - which attempt to chill free speech
by definition - from being instituted.
A stay of the SLAPP action is necessary while a motion to dismiss is pending in order to prevent other means in which the
SLAP? plaintiff attempts to cause harm or injury to the SLAPP defendant. For example, this is often done by attempting to tie
the defendant up in litigation, including discovery, and/or by forcing the defendant to have to advance legal fees and costs to
their counsel for otherwise unnecessary proceedings.
<LEGISLATIVE HISTORY>:
2018:A.1413/S.68- A.Judi(ECS)/S.Codes 2018:Similar to:A.5292/S.2183- A.Cal/S.Codes 2017:Similar to:A.5292/S.2183-

PA /S.Codes 2015-16: A.258/5.1638 -PA/S. Codes 2014: A.856/S.7280 - PA/S. Rules 2013: A.856 - PA 2012: A.10594 - A. Judi
<FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS>: None.
<EFFECTIVE DATE>: Immediately.
2019 NY A.B. 5991 (NS)

EXHIBIT 15
Free Speech 'SLAPP's Back: Governor Signs Hoylman/Weinstein Legisla... https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/brad-hoylman/free-s...
NEW YORK -- Today, Governor Cuomo signed into law legislation (S.S2AfA._5_9.91A
_(httQs:LLwww.nysenate.govL1egislationLbillsL2019LsS2.).) authored by Assemblymember Helene
Weinstein and Senator Brad Hoylman that will protect New Yorkers from SLAPPs: Strategic
Lawsuits Against Public Participation. This legislation would protect the First Amendment rights of
New Yorkers and prevent the rich and powerful from abusing our legal system to silence their
critics.
Senator Brad Hoylman said: "It's unacceptable that wealthy and powerful interests like Donald
Trump have been able to abuse New York's civil justice system by bringing meritless lawsuits
against their critics with the intent of harassing, intimidating, and bankrupting them. That ends
today. With the signing of this bill, New York will have one of the strongest anti-SLAPP suit laws in
the nation, protecting New Yorkers' free speech from vindictive bullies. Thank you to Senate
Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins, Assemblymember Weinstein, and Governor Cuomo for your
leadership in enacting this important law."
The New York State Senate passed S.52AfA._5_991A (httgs:LLwww.nysenate.govLlegislation/bills

L2019Lss2). in July, legislation authored by Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein and Senator Brad
Hoylman that will protect New Yorkers from SLAPPs: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation. This legislation would protect the First Amendment rights of New Yorkers and
prevent the rich and powerful from abusing our legal system to silence their critics.
Currently, New York's anti-SLAPP statute is only used rarely, due to its narrow scope;
approximately 30 states, including California, Texas, Nevada and Oklahoma, have anti-SLAPP
statutes that are stronger. Senator Hoylman and Assemblywoman Weinstein's legislation expands
on the existing statute by covering speech (or other lawful First Amendment conduct) related to an
issue of public interest. If a defendant's speech or activity falls under the protection of the newly-
broadened statute.judges will have the ability to dismiss these cases and require the entity who
brought the meritless lawsuit to cover the defendant's legal fees.
The legislation was passed at a time when advocates and journalists are under attack-both in the
United States and across the globe. President Trump's campaign has filed (httgs:LLaJJnews.com
L8a039..C.5_5f8ac75e85cbd318637fu_sm)_ a SLAPP suit against a Wisconsin television station that aired an
advertisement critical of President Trump's handling of the COVID-19 crisis; the campaign has taken
similar action against New York based news outlets, such as the New York Times
_(httQs:L/www.Qolitico.com/newsL202oLo2L26Ltrumg-camQaign-sues-nyt-libel-117739J_, that publish
criticism of the president.
Two weeks ago Senator Hoylman hosted a _gress conference (httQs://www.nysenate.govLnewsroom

Lgress-releasesLbrad-hoylmanLsenator-brad-hoylman-dont-let-j ared-and-ivanka-threaten-free).
beneath an anti-Trump Times Square billboard which highlighted this legislation.
1 of 4 4/12/2022, 2:43 PM
SHARE THIS PRESS RELEASE
( -- tt ( -- tt ( Q[
NEWSRGOIVl"O NEWSROOM (✓ ~ v 8 i;;J t .Q. ➔ ~ ✓ ~ ➔ i;;J m- = .Q. a~ Q i;;J 8 ✓ 8 v w~ ➔ .Q. .Q. Q )
Press Release
FASHION WORKERS (HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE.GOV/ISSUES/FASHION-WORKERSl. MODEL ALLIANCE
(HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE.GOV/ISSUES/MODEL-ALLIANCE), REGULATE MODELING AGENCIES
(HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE.GOV/ISSUES/REGULATE-MODELING-AGENCIES). SENATOR BRAD HOYLMAN
(HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE.GOV/ISSUES/SENATOR-BRAD-HOYLMAN)
Senator Brad Hoylman and Model Alliance Announce Introduction of Fashion Workers
Act to Regulate Modeling Agencies (Lnewsroom/gress-releasesLbrad-hoylmanLsenator-
brad-hoylman-and-model-alliance-announce-introduction).
March 25, 2022
(lnewsroom/i::1ress-releases/brad-hoY.lman/senator-brad-hoY.lman-and-model-alliance-announce-introductionl
In The News
BODY POSITIVITY (HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE.GOV/ISSUES/BODY-POSITIVITYl, EMPLOYEE PROTECTIONS
(HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE.GOV/ISSUES/EMPLOYEE-PROTECTIONS), SD 27 (HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE.GOV/ISSUES/SD-27).
SENATOR BRAD HOYLMAN (HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE .GOV/ISSUES/SENATOR-BRAD-HOYLMANl. WEIGHT DISCRIMINATION
(HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE.GOV/ISSUES/WEIGHT-DISCRIMINATIONl
Yes, You Can Still Be Fired for Being Fat (Lnewsroom/in-the-news/brad-hoylmanly:es-you-
can-still-be-fired-being-fat).
2 of 4 4/12/2022, 2:43 PM
March 15, 2022
Press Release
COMMUNITY COURT (HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE.GOV/ISSUES/COMMUNITY-COURTl. CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
(HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE.GOV/ISSUES/CRIMINAL-JUSTICE-REFORM), SD 27 _(HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE.GOV/ISSUES
/SD-27), SENATOR BRAD HOYLMAN (HTTPS://WWW.NYSENATE .GOV/ISSUES/SENATOR-BRAD-HOYLMAN)
Midtown Community Court Launches Misdemeanor Mental Health Court, Ex:gands Age
Eligibility for S:gecialized Part Aimed at Young Adult, Low-Level Offenders (Lnewsroom
L:gress-releasesLbrad-hoylmanLmidtown-community-court-launches-misdemeanor-
mental-health)_
March 14, 2022
SEE MORE NEWS V
Tick & Lyme Disease Prevention

(/newsroom/articles/2022/tick-lY.me-disease-prevention)
[::J READ MORE
(IN EWS ROOM/ ARTI CL ES/2022/TI CK-LYME-DIS EASE-PR EVE NTI ON)
New York State Senate Earth Day Poster Celebration

(!illps://www.nY.senate.gov/eform/submit/earth-dayJ
[::J READ MORE
( H TTPS:/ /WWW.NYSE NATE. GOV /E FORM/SUBMIT /EARTH-DAY)
2021 Women of Distinction Honoree

(!illps://www.nY.senate.gov/profiles/2021/brad-hoY.lman/anne-del-castillo)
[::J READ MORE
( H TTPS:/ /WWW.NYSE NATE. GOV /PROF I LES/2021/8 RAD-H OYLMAN/ ANNE-DEL-CASTILLO)
3 of 4 4/12/2022, 2:43 PM
Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Constituent

Resource
(/newsroom/articles/2021/covid-19-emergeng.,-eviction-and-foreclosure-prevention-act)
[::] READ MORE
4 of 4 4/12/2022, 2:43 PM
EXHIBIT 16
STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
52--A
IN SENATE
(Prefiled)
January 9, 2019
___________
printed to be committed to the Committee on Codes -- recommitted to
the Committee on Codes in accordance with Senate Rule 6, sec. 8 --
committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and
recommitted to said committee


3 read as follows:
11 existing law;
21 in connection with an issue of public interest; or

LBD04075-04-0
S. 52--A 2
1 public interest, or in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional

12 expression.
16 commission.] (d) "Public interest" shall be construed broadly, and shall
17 mean any subject other than a purely private matter.
18 § 3. Subdivision (g) of rule 3211 of the civil practice law and rules,
19 as added by chapter 767 of the laws of 1992, is amended to read as
20 follows:
21 (g) [Standards] Stay of proceedings and standards for motions to
22 dismiss in certain cases involving public petition and participation. 1.
23 A motion to dismiss based on paragraph seven of subdivision (a) of this
24 section, in which the moving party has demonstrated that the action,
25 claim, cross claim or counterclaim subject to the motion is an action
26 involving public petition and participation as defined in paragraph (a)
27 of subdivision one of section seventy-six-a of the civil rights law,
28 shall be granted unless the party responding to the motion demonstrates
29 that the cause of action has a substantial basis in law or is supported
30 by a substantial argument for an extension, modification or reversal of
31 existing law. The court shall grant preference in the hearing of such
32 motion.
33 2. In making its determination on a motion to dismiss made pursuant to
34 paragraph one of this subdivision, the court shall consider the plead-
35 ings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon
36 which the action or defense is based. No determination made by the court
37 on a motion to dismiss brought under this section, nor the fact of that
38 determination, shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the
39 case, or in any subsequent action, and no burden of proof or degree of
40 proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination in
41 any later stage of the case or in any subsequent proceeding.
42 3. All discovery, pending hearings, and motions in the action shall be
43 stayed upon the filing of a motion made pursuant to this section. The
44 stay shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on
45 the motion. The court, on noticed motion and upon a showing by the
46 nonmoving party, by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury
47 that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justi-
48 fy its opposition, may order that specified discovery be conducted
49 notwithstanding this subdivision. Such discovery, if granted, shall be
50 limited to the issues raised in the motion to dismiss.
51 4. For purposes of this section, "complaint" includes "cross-comp-
52 laint" and "petition", "plaintiff" includes "cross-complainant" and
53 "petitioner", and "defendant" includes "cross-defendant" and "respond-
54 ent."
55 § 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
EXHIBIT 17
NY LEGIS 250 (2020), 2020 Sess. Law News of N.Y. Ch. 250 (A. 5991-A) (McKINNEY'S)
2020 Sess. Law News of N.Y. Ch. 250 (A. 5991-A) (McKINNEY'S)
McKINNEY'S 2020 SESSION LAW NEWS OF NEW YORK
243rd LEGISLATURE
Additions are indicated by Text; deletions by

Text .
Vetoes are indicated by Text ;
stricken material by Text .
CHAPTER 250
A. 5991–A
Approved and effective November 10, 2020
AN ACT to amend the civil rights law, in relation to actions involving public petition and
participation; and to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to stay of proceedings
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 1 of section 70–a of the civil rights law, as added by chapter 767 of the laws of 1992,
is amended to read as follows:
<< NY CIV RTS § 70–a >>
(a) costs and attorney's fees may shall be recovered upon a demonstration, including an adjudication pursuant to subdivision
(g) of rule thirty-two hundred eleven or subdivision (h) of rule thirty-two hundred twelve of the civil practice law and
rules, that the action involving public petition and participation was commenced or continued without a substantial basis in fact
and law and could not be supported by a substantial argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law;
§ 2. Subdivision 1 of section 76–a of the civil rights law, as added by chapter 767 of the laws of 1992, is amended to read
as follows:
<< NY CIV RTS § 76–a >>
1. For purposes of this section:
(a) An “action involving public petition and participation” is an action, a claim, cross claim or counterclaim for damages that
is brought by a public applicant or permittee, and is materially related to any efforts of the defendant to report on, comment on,
rule on, challenge or oppose such application or permission based upon:
(1) any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; or
(2) any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with
an issue of public interest, or in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition.
(b) “Public applicant or permittee” shall mean any person who has applied for or obtained a permit, zoning change, lease,
license, certificate or other entitlement for use or permission to act from any government body, or any person with an interest,

NY LEGIS 250 (2020), 2020 Sess. Law News of N.Y. Ch. 250 (A. 5991-A) (McKINNEY'S)
connection or affiliation with such person that is materially related to such application or permission “Claim” includes any
lawsuit, cause of action, cross-claim, counterclaim, or other judicial pleading or filing requesting relief.
(c) “Communication” shall mean any statement, claim, allegation in a proceeding, decision, protest, writing, argument,
contention or other expression.
(d) “Government body” shall mean any municipality, the state, any other political subdivision or agency of such, the federal
government, any public benefit corporation, or any public authority, board, or commission. (d) “Public interest” shall be
construed broadly, and shall mean any subject other than a purely private matter.
§ 3. Subdivision (g) of rule 3211 of the civil practice law and rules, as added by chapter 767 of the laws of 1992, is amended
to read as follows:
(g) Standards Stay of proceedings and standards for motions to dismiss in certain cases involving public petition and
participation. 1. A motion to dismiss based on paragraph seven of subdivision (a) of this section, in which the moving party
has demonstrated that the action, claim, cross claim or counterclaim subject to the motion is an action involving public petition
and participation as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section seventy-six-a of the civil rights law, shall be granted
unless the party responding to the motion demonstrates that the cause of action has a substantial basis in law or is supported
by a substantial argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. The court shall grant preference in the
hearing of such motion.
2. In making its determination on a motion to dismiss made pursuant to paragraph one of this subdivision, the court
shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the action or defense
is based. No determination made by the court on a motion to dismiss brought under this section, nor the fact of that
determination, shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, or in any subsequent action, and no burden
of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination in any later stage of the case
or in any subsequent proceeding.
3. All discovery, pending hearings, and motions in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a motion made pursuant
to this section. The stay shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. The court, on
noticed motion and upon a showing by the nonmoving party, by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury that,
for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, may order that specified discovery be
conducted notwithstanding this subdivision. Such discovery, if granted, shall be limited to the issues raised in the motion
to dismiss.
4. For purposes of this section, “complaint” includes “cross-complaint” and “petition”, “plaintiff” includes “cross-
complainant” and “petitioner”, and “defendant” includes “cross-defendant” and “respondent.”
§ 4. This act shall take effect immediately.

EXHIBIT 18
CHAPTER ~f:l:)
LAWS OF 20_;;/j
SENATE BILL _ _ _ __ ASSEMBLY BILL 5C/9 IA-
STATE OF NEW YORK
5991--A
Cal. No. 226
IN ASSEMBLY
February 26, 2019
Introduced by M. of A. WEINSTEIN, SEAWRIGHT, ABINANTI, LOPARDO, SIMOTAS ,

TAYLOR, STECK -- read once and referred to the Committee on Judiciary
-- ordered to a third reading, amended and ordered reprinted, retain-
ing its place on the order of thlrd reading
AN ACT to amend the civil right s law , in relation to actions involving

DATE RECEIVED BY GOVERNOR:
OCT 3 0 2020
ACTION MUST BE TAKEN BY:
NOV 1 : 202D
DATE GOVERNOR'S ACTION TAKEN:

NOV 1 0 ·2020
' ✓
000001
SENATE VOTE filY~N HOME RULE MESSAGE _Y _N
DATE_ _/-+-"-/l'l_;;).j:1()-=----
ASSEMBLYVOTE /Jjp__y ~
DATE_ _ 7___
I
/~__/-,....,,c/~-------
1
· -
'-~_______ ____ _ _0_0_0_00_2 ------ - - - - - - -

1/13/2021 Legislative Information - LBDC
07/22/20 A5991-A Senate Vote Aye: 57 Nay: 3
07/21/20 A5991-A Assembly Vote Yes: 116 No: 26
Go to Top of Pag~
Floor Votes:
07/22/20 A5991-A Senate Vote Aye: 57 Nay: 3

Aye Addabbo Aye Akshar Nay Amedore Aye Bailey
Aye Benjamin Aye Biaggi Aye Borrello Aye Boyle
Aye Breslin Aye Brooks Aye Carlucci Aye Comrie
Aye Felder Aye Funke Aye Gallivan Aye Gaughran
Aye Gianaris Aye Gounardes Aye Griffo Aye Harckham
Aye Helming Aye Hoylman Aye Jackson Aye Jordan
Aye Kaminsky Aye Kaplan Aye Kavanagh Aye Kennedy
Aye Krueger Aye Lanza Aye LaValle Aye Little
Aye Liu Aye Martinez Aye May Aye . Mayer
Aye Metzger Aye Montgomery Aye Myrie Nay O'Mara
Nay Ortt Aye Parker Aye Persaud Aye Ramos
Aye Ranzenhofer Aye Ritchie Aye Rivera Aye Robach
Aye Salazar Aye Sanders Aye Savino Aye Sepulveda
Aye Serino Aye Serrano Aye Seward Aye Skoufis
A Stewart- Aye Tedisco Aye Thomas
Aye Stavisky ye Cousins
Go to Top of Pag~
Floor Votes:
07/21/20 A5991-A Assembly Vote Yes: 116 No: 26

Yes Abbate Yes Abinanti Yes Arroyo No Ashby
Yes Aubry Yes Barclay Yes Barnwell Yes Barrett
Yes Barron Yes Benedetto Yes Bichotte Yes Blake
Yes Blankenbush Yes Brabenec Yes Braunstein Yes Bronson
Yes Buchwald Yes Burke Yes Buttenschon No Byrne
Yes Byrnes Yes Cahill Yes Carroll Yes Colton
Yes Cook No Crouch Yes Cruz Yes Cusick
Yes Cymbrowitz Yes Darling Yes Davila Yes De La Rosa
Yes DenDekker No DeStefano Yes Dickens Yes Dilan
Yes Dinowitz No DiPietro Yes D'Urso Yes Eichenstein
Yes Englebright Yes Epstein Yes Fahy Yes Fall
Yes Fernandez ER Finch No Fitzpatrick No Friend
Yes Frontus Yes Galef Yes Garbarino · No Giglio
Yes Glick No Goodell Yes Gottfried Yes Griffin
Yes Gunther A No Hawley Yes Hevesi Yes Hunter
000003 1/2
1/13/2021 Legislative lnfonnation - LBDC
Yes Hyndman Yes Jacobson Yes Jaffee Yes Jean-Pierre

No Johns Yes Jones Yes Joyner Yes Kim
No Kolb No Lalor Yes Lavine No Lawrence
Yes Lentol Yes Lifton No LiPetri Yes Lupardo
Yes Magnarelli No Malliotakis No Manktelow Yes McDonald
No McDonough Yes McMahon Yes Mikulin No Miller B
Yes Miller MG No Miller ML Yes Montesano Yes Marinello
Yes Mosley Yes Niou Yes Nolan Yes Norris
Yes O'Donnell Yes Ortiz Yes Otis No Palmesano
Yes Palumbo Yes Paulin Yes Peoples-Stokes Yes Perry
Yes Pheffer Amato Yes Pichardo Yes Pretlow Yes Quart
Yes Ra Yes Ramos Yes Reilly Yes Reyes
ER Richardson Yes Rivera Yes Rodriguez Yes Rosenthal D
Yes Rosenthal L Yes Rozic Yes Ryan No Salka
Yes Santabarbara Yes Sayegh ER Schimminger No Schmitt
Yes Seawright Yes Simon Yes Simotas Yes Smith
Yes Smullen Yes Sol3:ges No Stec Yes Steck
Yes Stern Yes Stirpe No Tague Yes Taylor
Yes Thiele Yes Vanel No Walczyk Yes Walker
Yes Wallace Yes Walsh Yes Weinstein Yes Weprin
Yes Williams Yes Woerner Yes Wright Yes Zebrowski K
Yes · Mr. Speaker
00000~
2/2
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
subm~tted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec l(f)
BILL NUMBER: A5991A
SPONSOR: Weinstein
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the civil rights law, in relation to actions involving

PURPOSE OF BILL:
The purpose of this bill is to extend the protection of New York's

current law regarding Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
("SLAPP suits"). The amendment will protect citizens' from frivolous
litigation that is intended to silence their exercise of the rights of
free speech and petition about matters of public interest.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF BILL:
Section 1 of the bill would amend section 70-a of the Civil Rights Laws
to provide that costs and attorney's fees "shall be recovered upon a I
demonstration that -la SLAPP suit was commenced or continued without a
substantial basis in fact or law and could not be supported by a
substantial argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law."
Section 2 of the bill would amend section 76-a of the Civil Rights Law
to define an "action involving public petition and participation" to
include a claim related to:
i. Any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in

connection with an issue of public interest; or
ii. Any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the

constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of
public interest, or in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional
right of petition.
The bill also specifies that "public interest" should be broadly

construed.
Section 3 of the bill contains a stay of discovery and pending hearings

or motions once a motion to dismiss a SLAPP action has been made pursu-
ant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).
JUSTIFICATION:
Section 76-a of the Civil Rights Law was originally enacted by the
Legislature to provide "the utmost protection for the free exercise or
000005 415
speech, petition, and association rights, particularly where such rights

are exercised in a public forum with respect to issues of public
concern." L. 1992 Ch. 767. However, as drafted, and as narrowly inter-
preted by the courts, the application of Section 76-a has failed to
accomplish that objective. In practice, the current statute has been
strictly limited to cases initiated by persons or business entities that
are embroiled in controversies over a public application or permit,
usually in a real estate development situation. Meanwhile, many frivo-
lous lawsuits are filed each year that are calculated solely to silence
free speech and public participation, which do not specifically arise in
the context of the public "permit" process. By revising the definition
of an "action involving public petition and participation," this amend-
ment to Section 76-a will better advance the purposes that the Legisla-
ture originally identified in enacting New York's anti-SLAPP law. This
is done by broadly widening the ambit of the law to include matters of
"public interest", which is to be broadly construed, e.g. anything other
than a "purely private matter".
Additionally, the principal remedy currently provided to victims of

SLAPP suits in New York is almost never actually imposed. The courts
have failed to use their discretionary power to award costs and attor-
ney's fees to a defendant found to have been victimized by a frivolous
lawsuit intended only to chill free speech. By an award of costs and
fees, the Legislature had originally intended to address "threat of
personal damages and litigation costs . • . as a means of harassing,
intimidating, or punishing individuals, unincorporated associations,
not-for-profit corporations and others who have involved themselves in
public affairs." L. 1992 Ch. 767. This amendment to Section 70-A of the
Civil Rights Law makes clear that a court "shall" impose an award of
costs and fees, but only if the court fords that the case has been
initiated or pursued in bad faith. Together, the two amendments will
protect citizens against the threat -- and financial reality -- of
abusive litigation, but will not discourage meritorious litigation.
Further, a mandatory award of attorney's fees is necessary to discourage

SLAPP lawsuits - which attempt to chill free speech by definition - from
being instituted.
A stay of the SLAPP action is necessary while a motion to dismiss is

pending in order to prevent other means in which the SLAP? plaintiff
attempts to cause harm or injury to the SLAPP defendant. For example,
this is often done by attempting to tie the defendant up in litigation,
including discovery, and/or by forcing the defendant to have to advance
legal fees and costs to their counsel for otherwise unnecessary
proceedings.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2018:A.1413/S.68- A.Judi{ECS)/S.Codes
2018:Similar to:A.5292/S.2183- A.Cal/S.Codes
2017:Similar to:A.5292/S.2183- PA JS.Codes
2015-16: A.258/5.1638 -PA/S. Codes
2014: A.856/S.7280 - PA/S. Rules
2013: A.856 - PA
2012: A.10594 - A. Judi
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: None.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately.
000 006
515
THE ASSEMBLY ~~
~~
CHAIR
STATE OF NEW YORK WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE
ALBANY
COMMITTEE
RECEIVED Rules
COUNSEL'S OFFICE
HELENE E. WEINSTEIN
Assemblywoman 41 sr District SEP 2 5 2020
Kings County
September 23, 2020

Governor Andrew Cuomo
State Capitol - 2nd Floor
RE: A.5991-A/S.52-A
I write as Assembly sponsor of A.5991-A/S.52-A, which has passed both houses and is awaiting
transmittal to your office for consideration.
This bill updates and modernizes New York's Anti-SLAPP law (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
. Participation, Ch. 767, L.1992) by expanding the breadth of the law and also putting teeth into it so
as to deter these lawsuits from being brought.
In recent years, we have seen a growth - in New York and nationwide - in these types of lawsuits,
which are brought with one goal in mind: to stifle the free expressio·n of ideas and/or criticism. These
lawsuits are not brought to vindicate any particular right - instead, they are brought so as to cause
those sued to incur significant litigation costs, and to deter others from speaking out for fear of being
similarly sued.
Unfortunately, New York's anti-SLAPP law has proven inadequate to stem the rising tide of these
lawsuits, due to its limited scope and also due an
important procedural aspect, both of which I shall ·
discuss below.
The bill protects free speech and the free discussion of ideas in two important ways:
First and most importantly, the bill expands the type of speech that is protected by New York's anti-
SLAPP law. Given that the statute is in derogation of the common law; the courts have construed the
law quite narrowly, e.g. Hariri v. Amper, 51 AD 3d ·146, 151 (1 st Dept 2008). Thus, the current ·
statute has been strictly limited to cases initiated by persons or business entities that are embroiled in
controversies over a public application or permit, typically in a real estate development situation.
Meanwhile, many SLAPP lawsuits are filed each year that are calculated solely to silence free speech
and public participation, which do not specifically arise in the context of the public "permit" process.
By broadening the definition of an "action involving public petition and participation," this
amendment to Section 76-a of the Civil Rights Law will better advance the purposes that the
Legislature originally identified in enacting New York's anti-SLAPP law in 1992. This is done in the
Room 923, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248, (518) 455-5462
3520 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11229, (718) 648-4700
000007
Page Two - Letter to the Honorable Andrew Cuomo, Governor
bill by broadly widening the ambit of the law to include matters of "public interest", which is to be
broadly construed, e.g. anything other than a "purely private matter".
Second, the bill requires - rather than merely allows - an award of attorney's fees if the Court finds
that the lawsuit was brought to silence free speech. Specifically, the Appellate Division, Second
Department has noted the non-mandatory aspect of the anti-SLAPP law as concerns the awarding of
attorney's fees, and found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's failure to award same, a high
standard to overcome to be sure. Matter of West Branch Conservation Ass 'n, Inc. v. Planning Board
of the Town of Clarkstown, 222 AD 2d 513 (2nd Dept 1995). ·
I should also note that the enactment of mandatory attorney's fees in SLAPP actions for New York
would be consistent with statutes enacted in a growing number of states, e.g. California, Nevada,
Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, to name but a few.
Finally, I wish to respectfully note that for many years I have fought numerous efforts made to "bar
the courthouse door" or otherwise chill or make it more difficult for New York's citizens to seek
judicial intervention. I remain committed to my view that free access to the courts must remain
sacrosanct. This bill, however, deals with a very tiny but growing subclass of civil litigation, where
lawsuits are not brought to win on the merits, but are brought to harass, injure, and deter free speech
and expression by the defendant and others.
It is therefore respectfully hoped that these important changes to New York's anti-SLAPP law will
meet with your approval and be enacted into law. I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerelv.
cc: Elizabeth Garvey, Esq. Helene E. Weinstein, Chair

Denise Gagnon Assembly Ways and Means Committee
000008
THE ASSEMBLY
CHAIR
STATE OF NEW YORK WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE
ALBANY
COMMITTEE
Rules
HELENE E. WEINSTEIN
Assemblywoman 41 sr District
Kings County
September 23, 2020
Governor Andrew Cuomo

State Capitol - 2nd Floor
RE: A.5991-A/S.52-A
I write as Assem,bly sponsor of A.5991-A/S.52-A, which has passed both houses and is awaiting
transmittal to your office for consideration.
This bill updates and modernizes New York's Anti-SLAPP law (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation, Ch. 767, L.1992) by expanding the breadth of the law and also putting teeth into it so
as to deter these lawsuits from being brought.
In recent years, we have seen a growth - in New York and nationwide - in these types of lawsuits,
which are brought with one goal in min_d: to stifle the free expression of ideas and/or criticism. These
lawsuits are not brought to vindicate any particular right - instead, they are brought so as to cause
those sued to incur significant litigation costs, and to deter others from speaking out for fear of being
similarly sued. ·
Unfortunately, New York's anti-SLAPP law has proven inadequate to stem the rising tide of these
lawsuits, due to its limited scope and also due an important procedural aspect, both of which I shall
discuss below.
The bill protects free speech and the free discussion of ideas in two important ways:
First and most importantly, the bill expands the type of speech that is protected by New York's anti-
SLAPP law. Given that the statute is in derogation of the common law, the courts have construed the
law quite narrowly, e.g. Hariri v. Amper, 51 AD 3d 146, 151 (1 st Dept 2008). Thus, the current
statute has been strictly limited to cases initiated by persons or business entities that are embroiled in
controversies over a public application or permit, typically in a real estate development situation.
Meanwhile, many SLAPP lawsuits are filed each year that are calculated solely to silence free speech
and public participation, which do not specifically arise in the context of the public "permit" process.
By broadening the definition of an "action involving public petition and participation," this
amendment to Section 76-a of the Civil Rights Law will better advance the purposes that the
Legislature originally identified in enacting New York's anti-SLAPP law in 1992. This is done "in the
Room 923, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248, (518) 455-5462
3520 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11229, (718) 648-4 700
000009
Page Two - u:tter to the Honorable Andrew Cuomo, Governor
bill by broadly widening the ambit of the law to include matters of "public interest", which is to be
broadly construed, e.g. anything other than a "purely private matter".
Second, the bill requires - rather than merely allows - an award of attorney's fees if the Court finds
that the lawsuit was brought to silence free speech. Specifically, the Appellate Division, Second
Department has noted the non-mandatory aspect of the anti-SLAPP law as concerns the awarding of
attorney's fees, and found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's failure to award same, a high
standard to overcome to be sure. Matter of West Branch Conservation Ass 'n, Inc. v. Planning Board
of the Town of Clarkstown, 222 AD 2d 513 (2 nd Dept 1995).
I should also note that the enactment of mandatory attorney's fees in SLAPP actions for New York
would be consistent with statutes enacted in a growing number of states, e.g. California, Nevada,
Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, to name but a few.
Finally, I wish to respectfully note that for many years I have fought numerous efforts made to "bar
the courthouse door" or otherwise chill or make it more difficult for New York's citizens to seek
judicial intervention. I remain committed to my view that free access to the courts must remain
sacrosanct. This bill, however, deals with a very tiny but growing subclass of civil litigation, where
lawsuits are not brought to win on the merits, but are brought to harass, injure, and deter free speech
and expression by the defendant and others.
It is therefore respectfully hoped that these important changes to New York's anti-SLAPP law will
meet with your approval and be enacted into law. I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerelv.
cc: Elizabeth Garvey, Esq. Helene E. Weinstein, Chair

Denise Gagnon Assembly Ways and Means Committee
000010
DIVISION OF THE BUDGET BILL MEMORANDUM
Session Year 2020
SENATE: ASSEMBLY:
No. S52-A No. A5991-A
Sponsor: HOYLMAN Primary Sponsor: Weinstein
Law: Various Sections: Various
Division of the Budget recommendation on the above bill:
APPROVE: NO OBJECTION: X
1. Subject and Purpose:
This bill would require the awarding of costs and attorney fees to individuals upon a
demonstration that a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) was commenced or
continued without a substantial basis. The legislation would also expand the definition of
actions involving public petition and participation and would require the court to place a stay on
discovery and pending hearings or motions once a motion to dismiss a SLAPP action has
been made.
2. Budget Implications:
This bill would have no impact on State finances.
3. Recommendation:
This legislation would extend the protection of New York's current law regarding SLAPP suits.
The Office of Court Administration (OCA) has no position on the bill. The bill would have no
impact on State finances. Accordingly, the Division of the Budget has no objection.
Validation : Document ID: 1600291574171-37523-35712

Robert Mujica, Director of the Budget
By Poole, Stuart
Date: 09/16/2020 05:26PM
000011
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ONE COMMERCE PLAZA ANDREW M. CUOMO
99 WASHINGTON AVENUE GOVERNOR
ALBANY, NY 12231-0001 ROSSANA ROSADO

WWW.DOS.NY .GOV SECRETARY OF STATE
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Kumiki Gibson

From: David Gonzalez, Esq .

Legislative Counsel
Date: July 31, 2020
Subject: A.5991-A (M. of A. Weinstein)

Recommendation: No comment
The Department of State has no comment on the above referenced bill.
If you have any questions or comments regarding our position on the bill, or if we can
otherwise assist you, please feel free to contact me at (518) 474-6740.
DG/mel
4 wvoRK Department
JEOF
oRTUNITY.
000012
of State
Members of the Commission Kenneth F, Joyce
I ,'J.:8'-!llJI,-,·!,
Executive Director Emeritus
Michael J, Hutter William Josephson
John A, Cirando Special Counsel, Pro B011O
Jay C. Carlisle II
Justice All'red J, Weiner (Ret,)
.
,· . Rose Mary Bailly
Special Counsel, Pro Bono
NEW YORK STATE LAW REVlSION COl\ll\HSSION

ALBANY LAW SCHOOL
80 NEW SCOTLAND AVENUE
ALBAN\', NEW \'OllK 12208
Tel, (518) 472- 5858
Fax (518) 445 - 2303
Members E.\: Officio

Brad Hoylman
Chairman, Senate Judiciary
Jeffrey Dinowitz
Chain,·om1111, Assembly J11dlti11ry
Jamaal T. Balley
Chairman, Semite Codes
Joseph R. Lentol
Chairm110, Assembl)' Codes
October 23, 2020
Honorable Kumiki Gibson
Executive Chamber
The Capitol
Re: S. 52-A and A. 5991-A - An Act to amend to amend the civil rights law, in relation to actions i11volvi11g
public petition and participation,· and to amend the civil practice /m11 and rules, in relation to stay of
proceedings ·
Dear Ms. Gibson:
The Commission urges the Governor to sign S.52-A which amends the civil rights law and the civil
practice law and mies to broaden New York's rules regarding S.L.A.P.P. ("Strategic Law Suits Against Public
Pa11icipation") law suits, in a manner similar to S.L.A.P.P. statutes in other states. S.L.A.P.P litigation, which
is brought against individuals who have exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on a topic, is
designed to deter critical comment, is retaliatory in nature, and is an abuse of the com1 system. New York's
current anti- S.L.A.P.P. statute, Civil Rights Law §76-a, which has been strictly construed by the courts, as a
practical matter has been limited to controversies ove1· public applications or pe1mits. However, others who
exercise their First Amendment rights regarding matters of public interest are likewise targeted with expensive
and time-consuming cases. Such litigation frequently cannot withstand judicial scrutiny - but that is not its
purpose. Moreover, even though the statute gives the com1 discretion to award costs and attorneys' fees,
defendants rarely see these awards. S.52-A addresses these sho11 comings by expanding the definition of
actions subject to the statute to include matters of "public interest", a term that is to be broadly construed, and
by providing for a mandatory award of costs and attomeys' fees in cases brought in bad faith.
S.L.A.P.P litigation is an abuse of an overburdened com1 system. It is often used as an act of vindictive
intimidation. For example, Home Owner Associations through their corporate and association boards have used
such litigation to target shareholders and homeowners who dare complain about the HOA's policies and actions.
The HOAs sue using corporate funds (i.e. shareholder funds) to intimidate anyone who challenges them. By
doing so they waste judicial time and assets and abuse processes ofjustice.
000013
S. 52-A and A. 5991-A addresses situations such as these and should be signed into law. I would
be pleased to discuss any questions you have.
000014
C;).50
11111 New York State Bar Association

NYSBA
Committee on Media Law
DANIEL NOVACK, ESQ. - Co-Chair JACQUELYN SCHELL, ESQ. - Co-Chair
Penguin Random House LLC . Ballard Spahr LLP
1745 Broadway, NY, NY 10019 1675 Broadway, NY, NY 10019
· dnovack@penguinrandomhouse.com schellj @ballardspahr.com
Letter in Support of S.52-A & ·A.5991 (Hoylman/Weinstein)

De~r Governor Cuomo, Senator Hoylman, and Assemblywoman Weinstein,
The New York State Bar Association Media Law Committee congratulates you on the
historic enactment of Anti-SLAPP protection via Senate and Assembly Bills S.52-A/A.5991-A.
In passing this important legislation, the legislature has expanded New York's Anti-SLAPP
statute to cover those who need it.
Now, all New Yorkers exercising their First Amendment rights will have the benefit of
the heightened "substantial basis" pleading standard, which requires plaintiffs to offer
compelling evidence in support of their claims. See, e.g. 161 Ludlow Food, LLC v L.E.S.
Dwellers, Inc., 201 8 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3466 (holding that despite the fact that plaintitrs
allegations would ordinarily survive a Motion to Dismiss, they nonetheless "have not met their
heavy burden to survive the motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211 [g]. ") This provides
critical protection from powerful individuals who file baseless claims designed to threaten,
harass, and stifle any scrutiny or criticism.
Not only will meritless claims be dismissed faster; they will also be further
disincentivized by the change from a discretionary to mandatory attorneys' fees standard. This
will ensure a level playing field between the powerful and powerless by requiring SLAPP
plaintiffs to cover defendant's legal expenses in the event of a dismissal. In making this change,
both the dismissal and fee decisions will now turn on the same "substantial basis" standard,
which will serve to streamline the court's analysis of SLAPP suits.
Lastly, the introduction of an immediate stay of discovery during the pendency of a

Motion to Dismiss will prevent wasted time, expense, and judicial resources.
In enacting this law, New York honors a proud tradition of free speech rights. No longer
can any state claim a greater commitment to protecting dissent. This is welcome news to those
New Yorkers who are already fighting SLAPP lawsuits. They can finally even the odds.
The Committee thanks you for your support of First Amendment rights.
Very truly yours,
Daniel Novack, Esq.

Jacquelyn Schell, Esq.
Co-Chairs, NYSBA Committee on Media Law
000015
o ~
11111 New York State Bar Association
NYSBA
Committee on Media Law
DANIEL R. NOVACK, ESQ. - Co-Chair SANDRA BARON, ESQ. - Co-Chair
Penguin Random House LLC Yale Law School
1745 Broadway, NY, NY 10019 140 Riverside Drive, NY, NY 10024
(201) 213-1425 (212) 874-4258
dnovack@penguinrandomhouse.com sandra.baron@yale.edu
Memorandum in Support of A.5991-A/S.52-A (Weinstein/ Hoylman)

The New York State Bar Association Media Law Committee, which consists primarily of
lawyers specializing in First Amendment and media law and litigation, strongly endorses S.52-
A/A.5991-A, which would update and strengthen New York's current anti-SLAPP statute.
Strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPP" suits) are baseless lawsuits that
seek to silence those who exercise their First Amendment rights. The objective of a SLAPP suit
is not to defend one's reputation, but rather to harass. The message they send is that even truthful
speech about a powerful individual comes at the expense of a lawsuit. Anti-SLAPP legislation is
therefore urgently needed to protect the free press, including magazines, book publishers,
newspapers, websites, and film and television producers, as well as all citizens who seek to be
heard, from those who otherwise would use the legal system to attempt to silence them.
It is important to note that passage of the bill would not upset or undermine New York's
tort regime. Rather, it would help ensure that all New York citizens and businesses - especially
media companies, which play a critical role in informing the citizenry - are free to exercise their
free speech rights without risk of incurring substantial legal fees to defend meritless lawsuits,
while respecting the ability of those who have been harmed to seek redress in the courts.
In general, anti-SLAPP laws allow judges to consider relevant information at the earliest
possible threshold.in a case involving the exercise of free speech. That way, all of those involved
- the judicial system, defendants, and plaintiffs - avoid spending substantial time and resources
litigating a case that will ultimately be dismissed. However, in no way do anti-SLAPP statutes
diminish the rights of truly aggrieved parties. Nothing in the bill would preclude any claim that
has a reasonable basis in fact and law - or even a reasonable argument for extending, modifying,
or reversing the law.
In recent years, our Committee has observed a dramatic expansion of SLAPP suits filed
against reporters, filmmakers, candidates for political office, and even individuals commenting
on social media. For example, after numerous cease and desist letters were sent to stations across
the country, the Trump Campaign took the unprecedented step of suing a local television station
for airing an advertisement critical of the President's Coronavirus response 1•
New Yorkers face unprecedented threats from those who want to silence people who
present information that does not fit a specific narrative or viewpoint. Every time a powerful
individual threatens a lawsuit, New Yorkers must put a literal price on their First Amendment
rights. For such plaintiffs, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to punish negative
reporting or commentary is a mere line in a budget. Not so for the defendant. Depositions and
1
See https://deadline.com/2020/04/coronavirus-donald-trump-priorities-usa-1202906890/
00 0016
court appearances will keep them out of work, and funds that would have gone to reporters,
editors, and producers are instead spent in defense of a lawsuit.
The pending bill would improve New York's existing anti-SLAPP statute by expanding
the scope of the statute to cover claims involving "any communication in a place open to the
public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest" and "any other lawful
conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection
with an issue of public interest, or in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of
petition." This language will help ensure that New York's anti-SLAPP statute will apply to the
types of meritless claims that target the First Amendment-protected speech that all New Yorkers
have a Constitutional right to engage in.
The bill further provides for a stay of proceedings once a defendant files an anti-SLAPP
motion. This is essential to protect defendants from costly and time-consuming discovery,
hearings, and briefing while the motion is under consideration.
By expanding the coverage of the law to those who need it most, the bill would
discourage the filing of SLAPP lawsuits. First, it would provide a quick resolution to meritless
cases, preventing a plaintiff from dragging out the suit to maximize the time and expense for a
defendant. Second, by allowing defendants to recover their legal fees when prevailing against
claims that have no substantial basis in fact or law, New Yorkers would no longer have to pay a
devastating price to defend against meritless claims that attack free expression
New York has a long and proud tradition of protecting free speech rights. It is the media
capital of the world- home to the publishing industry, a number of the largest daily newspapers
in the United States- including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, as well as
many national television and cable news organizations. It also is the fastest-growing technology
hub in the United States. 2 More recently, New York has become home to a growing number of
film and television productions, which provide significant economic benefits to the state. 3
Approximately 30 states across the political spectrum have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes
in the past 25 years. Many of those states, from California, Nevada, and Oregon, to Texas,
Georgia, and Oklahoma, have anti-SLAPP statutes that are considerably stronger than New
York's current law. The relatively modest proposed changes to the existing statute would bring
New York law more in line with other states, and provide improved protection for the free
speech rights of all New Yorkers, including entertainment companies and the news media.
The Committee urges you to support this important legislation.
Very truly yours,
Daniel R. Novack, Esq.

Sandra S. Baron, Esq.
Co-Chairs, NYSBA Committee on Media Law
2
See http://www1.nyc.gov/site/intemationalbusiness/industries/technology-and-media-
industry.page.
3
See http://www.nysfilm.com/.
000 017
VIACOMCBS
Memo
To: NEW YORK LEGISLATURE
From: ViacomCBS
Date: JULY 16, 2020
Re: S.52-A (HOYLMAN) / A.5991-A (WEINSTEIN) AMENDMENTS TO ANTI-SLAPP

STATUTE
ViacomCBS, Inc. ("ViacomCBS") strongly supports the above referenced bills, which would
update and strengthen New York's current anti-SLAPP statute, Civ. Rts. L. §70-a, to further
protect the First Amendment rights of its residents and businesses, including our broadcast
and cable new divisions (e.g. CBS News), our film and television productions and networks
(e.g. Paramount Pictures, CBS, Showtime, Comedy Central, BET, MTV, Nickelodeon) and our
publishing house (Simon & Schuster).
Anti-SLAPP statutes enhance the protection of the First Amendment by providing a

mechanism for the early, quick, and efficient resolution of lawsuits that attack the exercise of
free speech rights. The effort to strengthen New York's statute is part of a nationwide push to
prevent the silencing of speakers through the aggressive use of meritless lawsuits targeting
free speech. This growing trend, the by-product of our increasingly polarized political
landscape, threatens our industry, not just from those who would attempt to harass and
extort, but more importantly, from those who seek to silence controversial ideas or suppress
facts they deem harmful to their interests.
New York is a major center of film and television production, as well as the home to our
headquarters. To maintain and grow production in New York, the state's anti-SLAPP law
needs to be brought near to the level of protection afforded in other competing jurisdictions.
The expense involved in defending against lawsuits targeting MPA members' speech is
significant. As other states take action to enact or strengthen their own anti-SLAPP statutes in
recent years, New York risks losing its edge as a place to produce new content.
000018
VIACOMCBS
Approximately 30 states have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes over the last 25 years.
Traditionally blue states like California, Connecticut, and Oregon, as well as traditionally red
states like Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee, all have anti-SLAPP statutes that are stronger than
New York's current law, or indeed even the one that is proposed. Protecting the First
Amendment is truly a bipartisan issue, and anti-SLAPP statutes typically attract support from
across the political spectrum. Earlier this week, the Uniform Law Commission approved a
model anti-SLAPP act, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act" ("UPEP A"); New
York's ULC delegation joined those of 48 other states and the District of Columbia in voting
in favor of this strong model act.
Neither New York's existing anti-SLAPP statute (enacted in 1992) nor the proposed
amendments in the pending legislation alter substantive New York tort law in the slightest.
Rather, the anti-SLAPP statute simply provides a mechanism for the quick and efficient
resolution of lawsuits that implicate defendants' First Amendment rights on public issues. If
a plaintiff has a valid claim arising from events that occurred, he or she will be able to pursue
such a claim regardless of the existence, or scope, of the anti-SLAPP law. The anti-SLAPP law
only affects the manner in which those claims are litigated in the courts.
For the reasons explained above, the ViacomCBS supports the updating and strengthening of
New York's anti-SLAPP statute as expressed in the above referenced legislation and urges the
Senate and Assembly to enact these bills forthwith.
Sincerely,
· Kira Alvarez
Vice President, Government Relations
000019
Legislative Affairs
One Whitehall Street
New York, NY 10004
212-607-3300
www .nyclu.org
ACLU of New York
2019 - 2020 Legislative Memorandum
Subject: Strengthening New York's Anti-SLAPP Statute
Bill(s): A.5991-A (Weinstein)/ S.52-A (Hoylman)
The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) strongly supports A.5991-A
(Weinstein)/ S.52-A (Hoylman), which would strengthen an existing law that deters
SLAPPs - frivolous lawsuits intended to punish First Amendment-protected speech.
What's a SLAPP?
Imagine the following scenario: a journalist publishes truthful, accurate

information suggesting an elected official is unfit for office. The report damages the
official's public image, but instead of responding on the merits, the official - who is
wealthy and powerful - sues the journalist for defamation and invasion of privacy.
The official knows the journalist's information is true and his lawsuit baseless, but
that doesn't matter, because he also knows the journalist doesn't have the money or
time to defend the suit and call the official's bluff. The journalist knows this too,
and so, faced with financial ruin simply for telling the truth, she retracts her report
and issues a public apology to the official, who then withdraws a lawsuit he knows
he would have lost if he'd gone forward. The journalist is wrongfully silenced and
chastened, the public is denied valuable information, and the official remains
convinced that the "truth" is whatever he can afford.
That sort of lawsuit is called a "SLAPP," or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public

Participation. Usually filed by a famous figure or public official against outspoken
critic, a SLAPP isn't meant to be won; it's just meant to be so ruinously expensive
and time-consuming to defend that the victim agrees to self-censor if the suit is
dropped. SLAPPs are one of the many ways powerful figures use the legal system to
punish critics, silence journalists and whistleblowers, and stifle the flow of
information and opinions protected by the First Amendment. And as social media
has amplified the public's capacity to speak truth to power, SLAPPs have grown
commonplace.
000020
Because SLAPPs threaten free speech, a free press, open government, and an
informed national debate, many states - roughly 30 - have adopted "anti-SLAPP"
laws that allow courts to quickly dismiss SLAPPs and punish those who file them.
New York has one, but it's narrow and out-of-date, applying only in the context of
government permitting and licensing. It offers nothing to journalists,
whistleblowers, authors, publishers, artists, critics, and commentators who
nowadays suffer litigation as the price of telling the truth.
A.5991-A I S.52-A would change that. It would make New York's anti-SLAPP
law applicable to any lawsuit arising out of First Amendment-protected
communication on issues of public concern, aligning New York's speech and press
protections with those of California, Texas, Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon, Colorado,
and other states that recognize the threat SLAPPs pose to the exercise of First
Amendment rights. The NYCLU strongly supports this bill, and urges you to do the
same.
Details: Why New York's Anti-SLAPP is Broken, and How this Bill Fixes It
Broad Protections for All Truthful Speech on Public Issues
A good anti-SLAPP law protects all speech on issues of public concern- not
just speech in certain contexts, forms of media, or legal proceedings - and applies to
any lawsuit arising out of any protected communication. It also defines "public
concern" broadly, ensuring that anything the public deserves to know is fully
protected.
New York's current anti-SLAPP law, however, is far too narrow. It applies
only to lawsuits brought by a "public applicant or permittee," against a defendant
who "report[s] on, comment[s] on, rule[s] on, challenge[s] or oppose[s] such
application or permission." 1 Essentially, it affords anti-SLAPP protection to just a
tiny class of people who speak out about someone who has applied for a permit,
zoning change, lease, license, certificate, or government entitlement, or for
government permission to do something. The law does nothing for the much larger
class of outspoken individuals who regularly suffer SLAPPs: journalists, authors,
publishers, commentators, broadcasters, filmmakers, artists, humorists, and
ordinary speakers who are sued into silence for speaking about issues of public
importance outside the government permitting context.
This bill would expand New York's anti-SLAPP protections to "any

communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an
issue of public concern" and "any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise
N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 76-a(l)(a)
000021
of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public
concern, or in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition" - the
same level of protection afforded by California law, widely considered the best anti-
SLAPP law in the country. California's courts have construed that broad definition
to cover almost any subject of public concern, wherever discussed, and New York's
courts would be on sure footing to do the same.
Speedy, Efficient Resolution that Keeps Defendant's Costs Down
A well-constructed anti-SL.APP law allows the court to quickly identify and

weed out SLAPPS. The defendant brings the alleged SL.APP to the court's attention,
the court puts the entire suit on hold, .and after very limited discovery, requires the
plaintiff demonstrate that the suit has enough merit to go forward. The court
evaluates the plaintiffs argument and issues a ruling in a matter of months, not
years, efficiently dismissing SLAPPs and keeping defendants' costs down, while :._
just as importantly- allowing genuinely aggrieved plaintiffs their day in court.
New York's current anti-SL.APP law neither stays the lawsuit nor
meaningfully accelerates the review process. But both features are critical, as the
whole point of a SLAPP is to make the lawsuit too expensive for the defendant to
fight long enough for the court to see the case for what it is. This bill fixes those
critical flaws by providing for both a stay and expedited review.
Attorney Fee Awards to Deter SLAPP Filers
Lastly, an effective anti-SL.APP law requires a plaintiff whose SL.APP is

dismissed to pay the defendant's attorney fees. This is a crucial deterrent, as
SL.APP plaintiffs almost always have greater resources than the defendants they
harass and intimidate, and usually don't care how much they spend as long as it
costs the defendant too much to win. A mandatory fee-shifting provision eliminates
that incentive altogether.
New York's current anti-SL.APP law has a fee-shifting provision, but it makes
a fee award optional, whereas most anti-SL.APP laws make such an award
mandatory ..The bill would make the award mandatory.
***
For the above reasons, the NYCLU urges lawmakers to support and pass this
. legislation.
000022
TO: Senator Brad HoyJman
AssembJymember Helene Weinstein
DATE: July 15, 2020
RE: Memorandum in Support of S.52-A/A.5991-A
WarnerMedia respectfully submits this memorandum in support of S.52-A/A.5991-A, which will update
New York's Law regarding Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") so that it further
deters frivolous litigation designed to suppress freedom of speech. In addition, WarnerMedia
encourages the legislature to take the additional and crucially important step of requiring that any
prevailing party on an anti-SLAPP motion be awarded attorneys' fees.
WarnerMedia is a New York-based company, with a proud tradition of producing and distributing
award-winning and critically-acclaimed television programs and films through its operating divisions
which include CNN, HBO, and Warner Bros., among others. WarnerMedia businesses have a
significant footprint in New York. For example, HBO is based in New York and has produced and
filmed many of its award-winning television programs and films in the State. Warner Bros. production
and post-production expenditures in New York for 2019 films and the 2019-2020 television season were
$670 million. Similarly, some of CNN's most iconic programs are based in its state-of-the-art New
York studio, including Cuomo Prime Time and Anderson Cooper 360.
The unfortunate reality of today's world is that punitive litigation designed to chill constitutionally
protected speech has become just another strategy for government officials, public figures, and just
· about anyone else who does not like what the news media says about them. Currently, CNN is
defending a libel lawsuit brought by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. over an Op-Ed posted on
CNN.com and a separate lawsuit brought by Congressman Devin Nunes arising from CNN's reporting
relating to the impeachment of President Trump. A few years ago, HBO's "Last Week Tonight with
John Oliver" faced a similarly meritless lawsuit after it published a segment focusing on safety issues in
the.coal industry. The plaintiffs in that lawsuit have filed over a dozen lawsuits throughout the United
States, each of which either has been dismissed, like the case against HBO, or dropped prior to having to
discovery commencing. These litigants are not seeking to redress a wrong; they are seeking to dissuade
others from publishing anything negative or critical, for fear of having to incur the substantial expense
of defending a lawsuit. Winning even a frivolous claim can be very expensive.
Section 76-a of the Civil Rights Law, as it currently stands, makes New York far less protective of free
speech than 30 other states, ranging from Georgia to California,. which have robust . anti-SLAPP laws.
This legislation widens the scope of existing law to include all matters of "public interest", a crucial step
tci ensuring the work of journalists and filmmakers falls within the scope of the statute's protection.
Stephanie S. Abrutyn, Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel, Litigation and Public Policy, WarnerMedia,
stephanie.abrutyn@hbo.com
(212) 512-5610
000023
In addition, existing law does not do enough to protect speakers from having to incur significant expense
to defend meritless claims. The stay of discovery and pending hearings or motions once a motion to
dismiss a SLAPP action has been made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) will help prevent litigants from
driving up costs through endless discovery requests and proceedings in a meritless case. Historically,
a
courts also have failed to use their discretionary power to award costs and attorney's fees to defendant
found to have been victimized by a frivolous lawsuit intended only to chill free speech. These
amendments to Section 70-A of the Civil Rights Law makes clear that a court shall impose an award of
costs and fees if the court finds that the case has been initiated or pursued in bad faith.
For these reasons, WamerMedia believes S.52-A/A.5991-A is an improvement over current law and
supports the bills. However, we encourage the legislature to go further, and provide - like California
and other states- that a prevailing party in an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to attorneys' fees in all
cases. Just today, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") was approved at the annual
meeting of the Uniform Law Commission. That model anti-SLAPP law contains mandatory fee
shifting, precisely because nothing short of a mandatory fee award will both discourage punitive
lawsuits designed to discourage speech and encourage robust and accurate reporting on issues of utmost
public importance. Without it, New York will continue to be an outlier that provides less protection for
speech than other states.
Sincerely,
Stephanie S. Abrutyn
000 024
NEW YORK NEWS PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
50 Colvin Avenue, Suite 102 • Albany, New York 12206 • 518-449-1667 • Fax: 518-449-5053 • www.nynpa.com
Diane Kennedy
President Memorandum in Support
S.52-A/A.5991-A
Albany-Times Union Protection of actions involving public petition and participation
Amsterdam-The Recorder
Auburn-The Citizen The New York News Publishers Association strongly supports S.52-
Batavia-The Daily News
A/A.5991-A and urges the Legislature to pass this important legislation at its
Binghamton-Press & Sun-Bulletin
Buffalo-The Buffalo News
earliest opportunity.
Canandaigua-The Daily Messenger
Catskill-The Daily Mail Although the Assembly has approved this legislation several times in recent
Coming-The Leader years, current events render this legislation both timely and extremely urgent.
Cortland-Cortland Standard
Dunkirk-The Observer
The Trump Campaign is using its vast stockpile of cash to bring frivolous
Elmira- Star-Gazette litigation against news organizations
Geneva-Finger Lakes Times (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/true-danger-trump-
Glens Falls-The Post-Star campaigns-libel-lawsuits/6077 53 D, newspapers
Gloversville-The Leader-Herald
(https://www .nytimes.com/2020/02/26/business/media/trump-new-york-
Herkimer-The Evening Telegram
Hornell-The Evening Tribune times-lawsuit.html), supporters of Democratic candidates for office and
Hudson-Register-Star broadcasters who agree to air ads critical of President Trump
Ithaca-The Ithaca Journal (https://deadline.com/2020/04/coronavirus-donald-trump-priorities-usa-
Jamestown-The Post-Journal
1202906890/) in an attempt to stifle perceived criticism. The Campaign's
King.,ton-Daily Freeman
Little Falls-The Evening Times
lawyers know the lawsuits will eventually be dismissed, but they are willing
Lockport-Union-Sun & Journal to essentially set money on fire to harass anyone who speaks or writes
Long lsland-Newsday unfavorably about their candidate. The Trump family is engaging in similar
Malone-The Malone Telegram legal actions to block publication by Simon & Schuster of a book detailing
Massena and Potsdam-
Courier-Observerflbe Advance News
the President's unsavory past (https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-
Medina-The Journal-Register
topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/83680-trump-family-sues-to-block-publication-
Middletown-The Times Herald-Record of-tell-all-memoir.html).
New York City-The New York Times
New York City-The Wall Street Journal There is no reason to believe these punitive actions will cease as November 3
Niagara Falls-Niagara Gazette draws closer, and we are concerned about additional legal costs imposed on
Norwich-The Evening Sun
Ogdensburg---Ogdensburg Journal
newspapers, book publishers and news organizations at a time when COVID-
Olean-The Times Herald 19 has sharply eroded revenues. At this time in the history of our _country, we
Oneida-Oneida Daily Dispatch need journalists and authors more than we ever have, and we can't afford to
Oswego-The Palladium Times allow the Trump Campaign and the Trump family to divert our resources to
Plattsburgh-Press-Republic.an
meritless court cases. Because New York State is the heart of the country's
Poughkeepsie-Poughkeepsie Journal
Rochester-Democrat and Chronicle book, magazine and newspaper publishing, it is urgent that our state
Rochester-The Daily Record government step up now to protect our right to the most robust possible
Rome-Daily Sentinel discussion of current events.
Salamanca-Salamanca Press
Saranac Lake-Adirondack Daily
The proposed legislation would update New York's Law regarding Strategic
Enterprise
Saratoga Springs-The Saratogian Lawsuits Against Public Participation to deter frivolous litigation designed to
Schenectady-The Daily Gazette suppress freedom of speech. New York lags behind 30 other states, ranging
Staten Island-Staten Island Advance from Texas to California, which protect the rights of their citizens to be free
Syracuse-The Post-Standard
from punitive litigation brought by wealthy interests who can afford to abuse
The Tonawandu-Tonawanda News
Troy-The Record the court system to deter the exchange of ideas.
Utica-Observer-Dispatch
Watertown-Watertown Daily Times When originally enacted more than 25 years ago, Section 76-a of the Civil
WellsviUe-Wellsville Daily Reporter Rights Law was designed to protect citizens who speak out on issues of
White Plains-The Journal News
public interest from punitive lawsuits brought by those who wish to
000025
silence opposition or criticism. However, the existing statute only protects speech regarding a "public
applicant or permittee," limiting its protections to disputes over real estate developments, zoning and
similar matters. Non-profit organizations, journalists, small business owners, political candidates,
teachers, public officials and individual citizens have been the targets of costly litigation that falls
outside the narrow scope of the current law. Only about a dozen cases have been found to fall within its
scope.
This legislation clarifies and extends the intent of the law by broadly widening the scope to include
matters of "public interest." Section 2 of the bill would amend section 76-a'of the Civil Rights Law to
define an "action involving public petition and participation" to include a claim related to:
i. Any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an
issue of public interest; or ii. Any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the
constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest, or in
furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition. The bill also specifies that
"public interest" should be broadly construed.
Additionally, the principal remedy currently provided to victims of SLAPP suits in New York is almost
never actually imposed. The courts have failed to use their discretionary power to award costs and
attorney's fees to a defendant found to have been victimized by a frivolous lawsuit intended only to chill
free speech. This amendment to Section 70-A of the Civil Rights Law makes clear that a court "shall"
impose an award of costs and fees, but only if the court finds that the case has been initiated or pursued
in bad faith. A mandatory award of attorney's fees is necessary to discourage SLAPP lawsuits - which
attempt to chill free speech by definition - from being instituted.
Section 3 of the bill contains a stay of discovery and pending hearings or motions once a motion to
dismiss a SLAPP action has been made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7). A stay of the SLAPP action is
necessary while a motion to dismiss is pending in order to prevent other means in which the SLAPP
plaintiff attempts to cause harm or injury to the SLAPP defendant. For example, this is often done by
attempting to tie the defendant up in litigation, including discovery, and/or by forcing the defendant to
have to advance legal fees and costs to their counsel for otherwise unnecessary proceedings.
We believe this legislation will support the robust public dialogue that is key to the effective operation
of a democratic society and urge its swift passage.
Sincerely,
Diane Kennedy
President
000026
October 12, 2020
Dear Governor Cuomo,
This summer, the New York Legislature sent a powerful message to opponents of free speech by passing
a robust expansion to the state's Anti-SLAPP law. Senate Bill S.52A and its Assembly counterpart
(A.5991-A) passed with overwhelming bipartisan support: 57 to 3 in the Senate and 116 to 26 in the
Assembly.
New York's Anti-SLAPP statute, originally enacted nearly thirty years ago, h?,s failed to protect those
who need it most: journalists, writers, academics, publishers, news organizations, film and television
producers, candidates for political office, and ordinary citizens. S.52A/A.5991-A expands the statute to
cover the full breadth of lawful expression, signaling that New York is the leader in safeguarding free
speech on matters of public concern.
As book publishers, we are committed to truthful inquiry and reasoned criticism. Therefore, we
unreservedly support the legislation and encourage your office to review it expeditiously. Your signature
is urgently needed in light of the recent influx of meritless lawsuits designed to chill the speech of our
authors. Without the protection of Anti-SLAPP, this phenomenon will likely intensify as we enter a
volatile, high-stakes election season.
Truth matters, but freedom of speech isn't free if the powerful can punish criticism in our courts.
For all the reasons cited in the attached materials, we respectfully urge you to sign S.52A/A.5991-A into
law immediately.
Respectfully,
Association of American Publishers
Hachette Book Group
HarperCollins Publishers
Macmillan Publishers
Penguin Random House
Simon & Schuster
W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Wiley
000027
July 17, 2020
To: Governor Cuomo and Members of the New York State Legislature
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. Yet
when the powerful file baseless lawsuits to punish critics, speech is not free. Rather, a toll must be paid
to share information of public concern. Journalists, writers, academics, publishers, news organizations,
film and television producers, candidates for political office, and ordinary citizens must have the
freedom to speak truthfully on matters of importance to our society, without fear of retaliation.
SLAPP lawsuits are an intolerable form of private censorship. It is more critical than ever that
New York, the media capitol of the world, provide robust protection against meritless claims designed to
chill speech.
We join the New York State Bar Association Committee on Media Law in endorsing the Anti-
SLAPP legislation put forward by Assemblywoman Weinstein and Senator Hoylman, for the reasons
cited in their enclosed memorandum.
Respectfully,
Advance Publications, Inc. National Press Photographers Association
A+E Networks NBCUniversal Media
American Booksellers for Free Expression News Corp
Association of American Publishers New York Civil Liberties Union
The Authors Guild New York News Publishers Association
BuzzFeed Inc. New York State Broadcasters Association,

Inc.
Cornell Law School First Amendment
Clinic NYP Holdings, Inc.
Daily News, L.P. Penguin Random House
Dow Jones & Company Radio Television Digital News Association
Gannett Co. Simon & Schuster
Hachette Book Group Triangle House Literary
HarperCollins Publishers The Tully Center for Free Speech at

Syracuse University
Macmillan Publishers
Victor Kovner
Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman LLP
Media Law Resource Center W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
000028
MILLER KORZENIK SOMMERS RAYMAN LLP
THE PARAMOUNT BUILDING • 1501 BROADWAY. SUITE 2015 • NEW YORK.. NY 10036
TEL212-752-9200 • FAX 212-688·3996 • WWW.MKSR.LAW
August 26, 2020
The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo

Governor of the State of New York
New York State Capitol Building
Executive Chamber
Albany, NY 12224
Re: Please Sign the New NY Anti-SLAPP Law: Protect the Press from the Recent Tide
of Alt-Right Litigation and Legal Threats - These Intimidation a,id Publicity Stu11ts
Ultimately Fail as Cases; but They Succeed in their Abusive Goals by Silencing Critics
and Punishing Those Who Refuse to Be Silenced with the Burdensome Costs of Defense
The law of libel and the 1st Amendment have not changed. But the atmosphere in
our country and the propaganda now directed against the free press has indeed
changed in a new and dark way.
The Alt-Right and right wing, energized by our President, have now deployed
litigation and legal threat to restrict the way that the press writes about them.
I have for many years acted as counsel for New York Magazine and many other
news organizations based in New York. I have also taught Media Law at Cardozo Law
School for over 20 years. I write in my personal capacity on the basis of that experience.
Threatened or filed libel actions have always been a source of concern. But now
noticeably more of the legal threats and actions come from two distinct sources: 1) Alt-
right and right-wing groups (including QAnon associated candidates) who do not like
our writing unfavorably about them; and 2) Russian related money interests that do not
like our identifying their connections with Russia or with the Trump campaign.
The bulk of these new libel claims are political. It should not be so; and the law
should impose sanctions on those who sue to gain unjustified political advantage.
Look at some of the most recent examples of such intimidation tactics:
► Laura Loomer, Republican candidate for Congress in Florida and right-wing

fanatic, sued New York Magazine in Florida for calling her" Alt-right" in a brief
story about her de-listing from Twitter. The article even quoted her view of the
term. Still she sued and New York must defend. New York will prevail, but must
00002 9
August 26, 2020
Page 2 of2
bear the cost of that needless defense. And Loomer benefits from the publicity
and intimidation that the announcement of such litigation affords her.
► Marjorie Taylor Greene, candidate for Congress in Georgia and advocate of the
conspiracy theories of QAnon, is presently threatening another one of my news
clients who are trying to cover that alarming subject of public concern.
► Congressman Devin Nunes sued Esquire magazine and its writer Ryan Llzza (not
clients of mine) for libel over an article about his family farm in Iowa. Nunes just
lost, as he should have, over an article that was an expression of clear and
obvious opinion and non-defamatory statements. But he gained the publicity
that initiating the litigation gave him, and he was able to impose significant costs
on Esquire which had to defend itself against Nunes' baseless action.
► My clients are regularly threatened with libel suits when they write about or
even approach such news subjects. The very existence of an Anti-SLAPP Law
will surely chasten their aggressive intimidation tactics. Our Anti-SLAPP may
well be applicable in the courts of other states in which New York news
publishers are sued. And it will encourage other jurisdictions to follow New
York's example.
Who are among the most notorious new crop of libel plaintiffs' lawyers?
Lawyers who take on litigation against the press on behalf of Trump, Trump associates
and candidates supported by him: Charles Harder, Larry Klayman, Steven Biss, Lin
Wood.and a growing list of others.
As President Obama observed this Wednesday night: "Ute free press is not the
enemy." But that is what our current President has made us out to be. That is where the
dark legal clouds that hover over us now come from. This Anti-SLAPP Law can lift
away some of that darkness.
Do we need this new Anti-SLAPP law (S52A and A5991) to counter the emerging
threat and abuse of process? Absolutely.
cc: Kumiki Gibson, Counsel to the Governor

Beth Garvey, Special Counsel and Senior Advisor to the Governor
000030
Elizabeth Kocienda Line3 (2/4) 10/15/2020 09:13:03 AM -0400
NEW YORK
CITY BAR
CoMMUNICA TIONS & 1'1EDlA LAW
CoMMITTEE
MATiliEW L SCHAFER
O!AJR
mlscbafer@1.gmail.com October 15, 2020
OVIL RIGHTS CoMMITTEE
ZOEY CHENITZ .
CO•CHAJR
zoey .chenitz@]11mail.com
KEVIN JASON
C:0-CHAJR
kjason65~gmru Lcom
Hon. Andrew M. Giorno

Governor of the State of New York
Executive Oiamber Capitol Building
Re: A.5991-A (AM Weinstein) / S.S2-A (Sen. Hoylman) - related to amendments to the
Chil Rights La·w's anti-SLAPP statute; SUPPORT
On behalf of the New York City Bar Association's Communications and l\.1edia Law
Committee and Gvil Rights Committee, we are writing to urge you to sign into law the
amendments to the New York anti-SI.APP law, which would bolster protections for individuals
and new., organizations from "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPPs).
Specifically, the amendments broaden the application of the e~sting anti-SI.APP statute and make
its fee shifting provision mandatory, in line with the laws of several other states. This bill (A.599 l-
A/S.52•A) is sponsored by Assembly Member Weinstein and Senator Hoylman; it passed the
Senate by a vote of 57 to 3 and the Assembly by a vote of 116 to 26.
New York has a ''consistent tradition . ... of providing the broadest possible protection to
'the sensitive role of gathering and disseminating news of public events."' 1 New Yorkers'
commitment to the freedom of the press can be traced to the Province of New York and the trial
of printer John Peter Zenger. Zenger ended up on the wrong side of the royal governor because of
his paper's attacks on the administration Despite being charged with criminal libel, a New York
1 O'Neillv. Oakgruve Constr., 71 N.Y.2d 521,529 (1988).
THEASSOClA TION OF THE BAR Of THE Ct TY OF NEW Y ORX

42 We:st 44•h Street, New York, NY 10036
212.382.6600 I www.nycb11r.or11
000031
Elizabeth Kocienda Line3 (3/4) 10/15/2020 09~14:01 AM -0400
jury ae,quitted him after his counsel, Andrew Hamil ton, implored them that the question regarding
freedom of the press was "not of small nor private c.oncem. " 2
Rather, Hamilton said, "It is the cause of liberty." As he told the jury, ··J make no doubt
but your upright conduct, this day, will not only entitle you to the love and esteem of your fellow
citizem; but "every man who prefers freedom to a life of slavery will bless and honor you, as men
who have baffled the attempt of tyranny; and ... laid a noble foundation for securing to
ourselves ... the liberty of both exposing and opposing aroitrary pov.er (in these parts of the \vorld
at l~t) by speaking and writing truth. u3
•
In recent years, however, New Ymk has failed to live up to this tradition. As attacks on
the press have ratcheted up, fuvolous litigation brought by well-heeled plaintiffs has followed. 4
Toe purpose of these kinds oflawsuits is not to remedy any :real harm Rather, the pmpose is to
exact financial retribution through retaliatory litigation costs incurred in defending against these
kinds oflawsuits, now commonly called SLAPP suits. As Senator Hoylman wrote, "This broken
system has led to journalists, consumer advocates, survivors of sexual abuse and others being
dragged through the c.ourts on retaliatory legal challenges solely intended to silence them. ,,s
While New York has an anti-SLAPP statute, originally adopted in 199'2, it is toothless
against these assaults. That statute, as it currently stands, is limited to cases brought by "a public
applicant or permittee" and that are "rmterially related to any efforts of the defendant to report on,
comment on, rule on, challenge or oppose such application or pennission!'6 Worse, courts have
held that the statute must be narrowly construed, making it meless in all but the rmst limited
circw.nstances. 7
The amendments to the statute address this problem in four principal (although not
exhaustive) ways:
• First, they broaden the application of the statute by making it applicable to any "claim..,
relating to public petition and partiapa.tion-as opposed to "a claim . , . brought by a
public applicant or pennittee ..,
1 LIVINGSTON RUTIIERFORD, JOHN PETER ZENGER, HIS PRESS, FIi S 1RIAL AND A BIBllOGRAPHY OF ZENGER IMPRINTS
240 (1904) (cleaned up).
J Id.
~ See, e.g., Joshua A. Geltzer & Neal K. Katyat, Tiu Tnui Danger of fhe Tnnnp Campaign's Defamation Lawsuits,
1lIE A TI ANTIC (Mar. 11, 2020), https://www .theatlantic.comlideas/archivel2020.t03itrue-danger-trump-campai1ms-
libel-lawsuitsi60775 3: William Cummings, Rep. Devin Nunes files $43S mil.lion defamation /awsuil against CNN,
USA TODAY{Dec. 4, 2019), ht;ps:/f\vww.usatodav .comistoryioewsipoliticsi2019/l 2/04idevin-nunes-files-•135-
million-defamation-lawsuit--against-rnn/260635900li (all websites last visited Oct. 14, 2020).
'Senate and Assembly Majorities Advance Anti-SLAPP Legiflation to Protect free Speech, N.Y. STA"IE
LEGISLA1URE (July 22, 2020), https:l1nvassembly.gov 1Pre~slfilcs/20200722a.php.
6 N.Y, Civ. Ri~ts Law§ 76-a(l).
1
See, e.g., Harri v. Amper, 51 A.D.3d 146, 15-1 (1st Dept. 2008) ("we find that lhe anti-SLAPP law is in derogation
of the common law and must be strictly construed."); Harfenes v. Sea Gate Assn., 167 Misc.2d 647 (Sup. Ct., N.Y.
Cnty. 1995) (finding that the statute should be "construed narrowly"). ·
000032
.. -- ·· - ·-·- · - - - - - - - - - -
Elizabeth Kocienda Line3 (4/4) 10/15/2020 09:15:29 AM -0400
• Second, they expansively define an action involving public petition and participation
as one based on"( 1) any cormnunication in a place open to the public or a public forum
in connection with an issue of public concern; or (2) any other lawful conduct in
furtherante of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with
an issue of public concern; or in :furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right
ofp¢tion"
• Third, they stay discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss, thus relieving
defendants subject to SLAPP ·suits of the . ominous threat of inclming substantial
litigation costs during discovery. ·
• Fourth, they make the award of fees mandatory, as opposed to discretionary, where it
is shown that a claim "was comm:mced or continued ,vithout a substantial basis in fact
and law and could not be supported by a substantial argument for the extension,
m:xtification or reversal of existing law." Consistent ·with the intent of the Legislature
to broaden the application of the statute, the Committee understmds this provision as
requiring an awaro of fees upon the granting of a motion to dismiss _pursuant to CPLR
3211.
lhese amendments would bring New York int<> line with other jurisdictions, including
Texas and California, that provide broad protections to defendants sued in strategic lawsuits
against public participation. The media capital of the world should be leadiog~ilot following-
other states in slrengthening protections of om.- most cherished rights of freedom of speech and of
the press.
For these reasons, -we urge you to sign the anti-SLAPP ~ n t s into law. 'Thank you
for your consideration.
Respectfully,
:M.attne.w L. Scfiafer1s1
Matthew L. Schafer
Cllair, Comrrnmications and Media Law Connnittee
Zoey Cfienitz hi
Zoey Cllenitz
Co-Omir, avil Rights Committee
XevinJason /sf
Kevin Jason
Co-Cltair, Qvil Rights Committee
000033
REPORTERS
COMMITTEE
f"OR f"REEDOM or THE PRESS
1156151h S1. NW. Suite 1020
Waslllngton, D.C. 20005 By email November 5, 2020
(202) 795-9300
wv.-w.rdj,.org
Bru« D. Brown The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
umnive Director
bbrown@rd'p.ora Governor, State of New York
(202) ~9301
NYS State Capitol Building
sn:EJUNC COMMrrru; CHAIRMAN Albany, NY 12224
STEPHEN I. ADLER. Rmm
sn:ERJNCCOMMITil[MtMBERS
J. SCOTT Al'fl.J!WHm!
TIN JUSO<'laled Prm
Re: Support for A. 5991-A {Weinstein)
WOl.fBIJTZl!ll
CNN
DAVID BOARDMAN Dear Governor Cuomo:
Tempi, Urd,,cn/ry
TilEODORE J. BOlmUlUS, 1ll
Gtlml,~~CnllkrUP
MASSl"4O CALABRESI
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press respectfully
n,.,M~., writes to urge you to sign A. 5991 -A, which would significantly improve
MANNY GARCIA
p,..P•bllca protections in New York for journalists and others facing frivolous "Strategic
EMIIJO GARCIA,RUIZ
S... l'ir>Mf,co 0,,o,rkl,
Lawsuits Against Public Participation," or SLAPPs.
X>SH Cil!ltSroN
l'OUTICO
Au:xGIBNEY Briefly, A. 5991-A would extend the current anti-SLAPP law to deter
Jl,-W Pmdwn/olu
SUSAN OOLDIIEllG
claims based on speech or lawful conduct in furtherance of the·right to free
/olOll-1 Geormpl,lr
/AMES GIUMALD!
speech on matters of public interest; provide for a stay of discovery and other
n,, Wall S11ct1 Jou,w,J proceedings upon the filing of a motion to dismiss a SLAPP suit; and change
LAURA HANI>MAN
Drrv/1 Wtlpu n-,,hle the current pennissive fee-shifting to mandatory fee-shifting, an important
DU!OO IBARGOEN
HtorJI
deterrent against lawsuits designed to chill news reporting. For additional
KAJll!N KAISER
71,, AJSoriattd l'rar
·detai1 on why this provision would promote the rights of the press and public
' DAVIDLAUTHR in New York State, please see the attached letter submitted on July 20, 2020,
711,/,orMjll/u~
MAROARIIT LOW to leadership in the New York State Senate and Assembly endorsing the bill.
VY6UR
IANI! MA Yl!R
11Jt,.,._, YMl'r The Reporters Committee thanks you for your attention to this matter.
001.Ll!EN MCCAIN NELSON
n,, McClolfflyC-,-, Please do not hesitate to contact Gabe Rottman at the Reporters Committee
MAGGIE MUI.VllllU.
Bomff Uniw:nlty with any questions at grottman@rcfp.org.
JA"4ES NEFF
TIN PAl/odt/pl,Ja l•9¢rrr
NORMAN PEAltLSTlNE Sincerely,
11H Im M11<i,1 n.,,.
~
THOMAS C. RUBIN
S-,ftt,r//111Sdtoo/
CHARUE SAVAGE
n,, N,., Y..t T-,
lf!~'NIFER SONDAG
ll"'-"<,.,Nn,,1 Gabe Rottman
NABIHASYED
111,Ma,bp Director of the Technology and Press Freedom Project .
Al>AMSYMSON
n,, F.W. S,tlppa C-fG'Y
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
PIERRI! JHOMAS
ABC N,,,1
,.,..,,,_
SAU1'1>1lA TOIIRY
VICKIE WALTON-1AMl!S
NPR
IUDY WOODRUFF
PI/SITlltN1w1H..,,.
HONORARY LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
CHIP BOK
c-s,...a....
DAHLIA UTI!WICK
S/Olt
TO:o' MAURO
- • L,,w,y,r Uodla. ,.,
ANDRl!A MTTCHEU.
NBCNc¥1
CAROL ROSE:NBEllG
111o11... , ... n-,
PAUL STEIGER
Pral'llblka
A,fil.,,.,,,..,_ _, 000034
,,,,.,,,,,.,..-rifonJo,,.
ATTACHMENT
oooofs
REPORTERS
COMMITTEE
f"OR f"REEDOM OF' THE PRESS
By email
I 156 15th SL NW, Suire I020
Wuhin&ton, D.C. 2000S
(202) '19S-9300 July 20, 2020
www.rd'p.org
Bruce 0. Brown
Eile<:111ivc Direaor
bhrowll@n:(f.ora The Honorable Jamaal T. Bailey
(202) 711,-9301
Chair, Standing Committee on Codes
STEERING COMMITTEE New York State Senate
Sll!PIIEN J. ADLER
Rtt,,,, Legislative Office Building, Room 609
,. scorr APl'UWHITI!
ThAJ110ClaledPru1 Albany, NY 12247
WOLFButtEll
C/VN
DAVID BOARDMAN
r,,,,,.,, u,,1wm11y The Honorable Andrew J. Lanza
THl!ODORE J. 80UTROIJS, JR. Ranking Member, Standing Committee on Codes
aa.... am&o,_.uJ'
MASSIMO CALABRJ!Sl
New York State Senate
T-Mop:I,,,
Legislative Office Building, Room 606
MANNY GARCIA
ProP•Mia, Albany, NY 12247
EMIIJO GAllCIA•RUlZ
n, Wtullinr1"" l'•n
JOSH Gl!RSTEJN
POlJTICO
The Honorable Brad Hoylman
AlJ!XOlBNEY
Ji,,- Prodil<tlo,,t
Chair, Standing Committee on Judiciary
SUSAN GOLDBERG New York State Senate
Not>-1 Groirtvpl,I<
JAMES GRJMALDI
Legislative Office Building, Room 606
Tlir Woll Sllfft J ..-1
I.AURA HAND:\IAN
Albany, NY 12247
Vtn11 Wrlpt T,.,...,,.,
DIEGO mARGOl!N
H,unt The Honorable Helene Weinstein
KAREN KAISEll
11,r A11ocla11d Prru
Chair, Standing Committee on Ways and Means
DAVID 1.A\Il'Ea
LotA"ltlu~
New York State Assembly
MAllOAIUIT I.OW Legislative Office Building, Room 923
lfl!UR
IAJ\'l!MAY?R Albany, NY 12248
n,. ,,,.. rorar
COLJB!N MCCAIN NELSON
11,c McC/otd,J' r.._,. Re: Support for S. 52-A (Hoylman) / A. 5991-A (Weinstein)
MAGGIE MIJLVIHDJ.
,,~,'Ir:,,, u,.,.,.,,,,.,
JAMES NEFF
7lor fA llaltl/llrlO 1,.._1,., Dear Chairman Bailey, Ranking Member Lanza, Chairman Hoylman, and
NOR.MA.~ Pl!AIU.STINE
Tit< l...o.t A,a;r/11n-, Chairwoman Weinstein :
TIIOMA.$ C. RUBIN
S11111fol'd1--
CHARLlli SAVAGE The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press strongly supports
Tit,,..,..
yo,t n,,,,,
A. 5991-A (Weinstein) and S. 52-A (Hoylman), which would significantly
.Je,1'"1l'ER SOl'IDAG
/lloollfbHJ 11,,., improve protections in New York for journalists and others facing frivolous
NABIHA SYED
T1t<Morioq, "Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation," or SLAPP, lawsuits.
ADAMSVMSON
n, E.W. SmpptC-p,111}' SLAPP suits-brought by plaintiffs as an effort to suppress protected speech,
PIERll THOMAS
ABCN,..,
not in an expectation of succeeding on the merits-significantly restrict the
SAUNDRA TORRY
FrN/o- .
free flow of newsworthy information to the public. ·
VICKIE WALTON.,fAMES
NPR
JUDY WOODRUFF
The Reporters Committee was founded by leading journalists and
PBSm.. NrwtHn•r
HONORARY LEAD_tlUHIP COlll'ICIL
media lawyers in 1970 when the nation's news media faced an unprecedented
CHIPBOK wave of government subpoenas forcing reporters to name confidential
c,...,.,,:,,n41a,1,
TONY MAURO sources. Today, its attorneys provide pro bono legal representation, amicus
A_ _,, UW,YI Mtdlo, ,.,
DAHLIA Llll!W1CK
Siar,
M'DllEA MITCHELL
NBCNno•t
CAROL ROSEl','BERO
Tit<,,-,.. r.,u,..,,
PAULSlEGER
000036.
P,vhbJico
AJilidlitt,a.,;,.,""'1
fo,pr,-of~
.... _.. _,,__ ___ ..

, _____________________________________
j _
curiae support, and other legal resources to protect First Amendment freedoms and the
newsgathering rights of journalists.
Effective anti-SLAPP laws allow defendants who have been sued for speech on
matters of public interest to dismiss the case early, before incurring significant legal fees,
and require those who bring SLAPP suits to pay fees and costs, which serves to deter
unmeritorious cases. New York's current law is unduly narrow. It only covers speech
regarding a "public applicant or permittee," which removes journalists from its scope.
The bills under consideration-A. 5991-A and S. 52-A-would extend the law to
statements on matters of "public interest" more broadly, made in places open to the
public, public forums, or in furtherance of the exercise of free speech or the right to
petition. Section 2 also confirms that "public interest" should be construed broadly.
The legislation would also crucially provide for a stay of discovery and other
proceedings upon the filing of a motion to dismiss a SLAPP suit, and it would then
expedite consideration of the anti-SLAPP claim. This is essential for defendants,
including media defendants, as SLAPP suits often seek to burden the defendants with
litigation costs as part of the effort to suppress public participation. ·
Finally, the legislation changes the current permissive fee-shifting in existing law,
where a court "may" award fees and costs to a successful defendant, to the approach used
in the most effective anti-SLAPP laws, where fees and costs "shall" be awarded if the
defendant prevails in establishing that the action was, in fact, a SLAPP. The mandatory
fee-shifting is an important deterrent for SLAPPs, and is the approach taken in states with
the most effective anti-SLAPP laws, such as California.
Unmeritorious SLAPP suits continue to proliferate in New York and around the
country. For instance, late last month, the Reporters Committee, joined by the
Association of American Publishers, and PEN America filed an amicus brief in New
York Supreme Court in opposition to a lawsuit filed by Robert Trump, President Trump's
brother, seeking to block publication of a book by niece Mary Trump on the president. 1
Earlier, in May, the Reporters Committee joined a brief filed by the NCTA -The Internet
and Television Association seeking dismissal of a consumer protection claim against Fox
News based on its reporting around COVID-19, in which the plaintiff argued that cable
news providers are undeserving of First Amendment protections at all. 2
Amicus Curiae Brief of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the
Association of American Publishers, Inc., and PEN American Center, Inc. in Support of
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order, Trump v. Trump, No. 2020-51585 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 30, 2020),
https://www.rcfp.org/mary-trump-book•prior-restraint/.
2 See Gabe Rottman, Fox News Lawsuit Would Strip First Amendment Protection
from Cable News and the internet, Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press (May 18,
2020), https://www.rcfp.org/fox-news-washlite-lawsuit-analysis/.
oooq37
We thank the New York Assembly and Senate for your attention to this important
issue, and urge you to pass S. 52-A and A. 5991-A. Please do not hesitate to contact me
at grottman@rcfp.org with any questions.
Sincerely,
Gabe Rottman
Director of the Technology and Press Freedom Project
cc: Members of the Standing Committee on Codes
ooop3s
July 20, 2020
The Honorable Jamaal T. Bailey

Chair, Standing Committee on Codes
New York State Senate Legislative Office Building, Room 609
Albany, NY 12247
The Honorable Andrew J. Lanza

Ranking Member, Standing Committee on Codes
Albany, NY 12247
The Honorable Brad Hoylman

Chair, Standing Committee on Judiciary
Albany, NY 12247
The Honorable Helene Weinstein

Chair, Standing Committee on Ways and Means
New York State Assembly Legislative Office Building, Room 923
Albany, NY 12248
Re: Support for S. 52-A (Hoylman) / A. 5991-A (Weinstein)
Dear Chairman Bailey, Ranking Member Lanza, Chairman Hoylman, and Chairwoman
Weinstein:
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press strongly supports A.5991-A
(Weinstein) and S. 52-A (Hoylman), which would significantly improve
protections in New York for journalists and others facing
frivolous?Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation,? or SLAPP,
lawsuits. SLAPP suits?brought by plaintiffs as an effort to suppress
protected speech, not in an expectation of succeeding on the
merits?significantly restrict the free flow of newsworthy information to
the public.
The Reporters Committee was founded by leading journalists and media lawyers
in 1970 when the nation?s news media faced an unprecedented wave of
government subpoenas forcing reporters to name confidential sources. Today,
its attorneys provide pro bono legal representation, amicus curiae support,
and other legal resources to protect First Amendment freedoms and the
newsgathering rights of journalists.
000039 ·
Effective anti-SLAPP laws allow defendants who have been sued for speech on
matters of public interest to dismiss the case early, before incurring
significant legal fees, and require those who bring SLAPP suits to pay fees
and costs, which serves to deter unmeritorious cases. New York?s current
law is unduly narrow. It only covers speech regarding a ?public applicant
or permittee,? which removes journalists from its scope.
The bills under consideration?A. 5991-A and S. 52-A?would extend the law
to statements on matters of ?public interest? more broadly, made in
. places open to the public, public forums, or in furtherance of the exercise
of free speech or the right to petition. Section 2 also confirms that
?public interest? should be construed broadly.
The legislation would also crucially provide for a stay of discovery and
other proceedings upon the filing of a motion to dismiss a SLAPP suit, and it
would then expedite consideration of the anti-SLAPP claim. This is essential
for defendants, including media defendants, as SLAPP suits often seek to
burden the defendants with litigation costs as part of the effort to suppress
public participation.
Finally, the legislation changes the current permissive fee-shifting in

existing law, where a court ?may? award fees and costs to a successful
defendant, to the approach used in the most effective anti-SLAPP laws, where
fees and costs ?shall? be awarded if the defendant prevails in
establishing that the action was, in fact, a SLAPP. The mandatory
fee-shifting is an important deterrent for SLAPPs, and is the approach taken
in states with the most effective anti-SLAPP laws, such as California.
Unmeritorious SLAPP suits continue to proliferate in New York and around the
country. For instance, late last month, the Reporters Committee, joined by
the Association of American Publishers, and PEN America filed an amicus brief
in New York Supreme Court in opposition to a lawsuit filed by Robert Trump,
President Trump?s brother, seeking to block publication of a book by niece
Mary Trump on the president. Amicus Curiae Brief of the Reporters Committee
for Freedom of the Press, the Association of American Publishers, Inc., and
PEN American Center, Inc. in Support of Defendants? Opposition to
Plaintiff?s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
Order, Trump v. Trump, No. 2020-51585 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 30, 2020),
https://www.rcfp.org/mary-trump-book-prior-restraint/.
Earlier, in May, the Reporters Committee joined a brief filed by the NCTA ?
The Internet and Television Association seeking dismissal of a consumer
protection claim against Fox News based on its reporting around COVID-19, in
which the plaintiff argued that cable news providers are undeserving of First
000040
Amendment protections at all. See Gabe Rottman, Fox News Lawsuit Would Strip
First Amendment Protection from Cable News and the Internet, Reporters Comm.
for Freedom of the Press (May 18, 2020),
https://www.rcfp.org/fox-news-washlite-lawsuit-analysis/.
We thank the New York Assembly and Senate for your attention to this
important issue, and urge you to pass S. 52-A and A. 5991-A. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at grottman@rcfp.org with any questions.
Sincerely,
Gabe Rottman
Director of the Technology.and Press Freedom Project
cc: Members of the Standing Committee on Codes
000041
November 5, 2020

· Governor, State of New York
Albany, NY 12224
Re: Support for A. 5991-A (Weinstein)
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press respectfully writes to urge
you to sign A. 5991-A, which would significantly improve protections in New
York for journalists and others- facing frivolous ?Strategic Lawsuits
Against Public Participation,? or SLAPPs.
Briefly, A. 5991-A would extend the current anti-SLAPP law to deter claims
based on speech or lawful conduct in furtherance of the right to free speech
on matters of public interest; provide for a stay of discovery and other
proceedings upon the filing of a motion to dismiss a SLAPP suit; and change
the current permissive fee-shifting to mandatory fee-shifting, an important
deterrent against lawsuits designed to chill news reporting. For additional
detail on why this provision would promote the rights of the press and public
in New York State, please see the attached letter submitted on July 20, 2020,
to leadership in the New York State Senate and Assembly endorsing the bill.
The Reporters Committee thanks you for your attention to this matter. Please
do not hesitate to contact Gabe Rottman at the Reporters Committee with any
questions at grottman@rcfp.org.
Sincerely,
Gabe Rottman
Director of the Technology and Press Freedom Project
000042
~ The fekrYis..icp Company
To: Members of the New York State Senate and New York State Assembly
From: The Walt Disney Company
Date: July 20, 2020
Subject: Memorandum in Support of S.52-A/A.5991-A
The Walt Disney Company ("TWDC") respectfully submits this memorandum in

support of S.52-A/A5991-A, which will update and strengthen this state's anti-
SLAPP statute, Civil Rights Law §70-~ so that New York joins other states with
modem, robust statutes that broadly protect speech of public interest, including that
of journalists and filmmakers, from punitive and harassing lawsuits.
1brough its news, motion picture and television subsidiaries, TWDC has significant
business interests in New York. For example, ABC News is based in New York and
produces such acclaimed national news programs as World News with David Muir,
Good Morning America, This Week, 20/20 and Nightline, and provides local news to
New Yorkers though its award-winning owned station WABC-TV. ESPN covers
sports in New York that are undoubtedly of keen public interest. Motion picture and
television productions not only film in New York, but also memorably depict New
York and New Yorkers as~ for example, in Marvel's The Avengers. Stephen
Spielberg recently completed his motion picture version of West Side Story on
location in various sites, including Harlem, the Flatlands and Brooklyn.
Content-producing news, motion picture and television businesses working in New

York need a robust anti-SLAPP statute to protect them from meritless and expensive
lawsuits meant to silence speech on matters of public interest, especially in today's
highly-polarized environment. For example, there recently have been attempts to
punish the reporting of ABC News journalists reporting on political affairs and other
matters of public interest. Our reporters are subject to lawsuits aimed at stopping
investigations and unfavorable facts from coming to light, or at punishing the
publication of critical facts that may be unpopular with some. These lawsuits often
are not filed for the purpose of resolving the merits of a defamation or other alleged
claim, but to intimidate and silence speech that a plaintiff does not like.
Right now in New York, such meritless suits might very well proceed to time-
consuming discovery, wasting the resources and time of courts and defendants. The
amended anti-SLAPP would nip many of these harassing lawsuits in the bud, staying
discovery and other proceedings upon a motion to dismiss and providing for an
500 South Buena Vista Street. Burbank. CA 91521-1151

Tel 818.560.1719 Fax 818.846.8406
000043
¾ The ~~S411Ef Company
effective threshold disposition for all matters of "public interest." In fact, S.52-
A/A.5991-A would properly expand the scope of New York's anti-SLAPP statute to
include the speech of journalists and filmmakers. If a court finds that a litigant's suit
has potential merit, it will proceed. If not, the defendant wiU be spared from being
the victim of a punitive lawsuit intended to mire it in time-consuming, expensive and
needless litigation. Strong anti-SLAPP laws that require the early and efficient
dismissal of lawsuits targeting free speech are available in states like California,
Texas, Georgia, Tennessee and Connecticut, all of which compete with New York
for motion picture and television projects. It is time for the media capital of the
world to adopt similar protections. Indeed, S.52-A/A.5991-A is wholly consistent
with New York's other free speech protections, including its robust journalist's
Shield Law (Civil Rights Law § 79-h)~ and the court-created exception for
newsworthy publications in right of publicity cases where a matter of public interest
is stake (Civil Rights Law§§ 50-51 ).
We also believe New York's anti-SLAPP protections will be strengthened consistent

with these in-state and out-of-state laws by a provision requiring that a court "shall"
award attorney's fees to a prevailing anti-SLAPP party. Tiris is because a mandatory
award of fees and costs to a prevailing party is a strong and real deterrent to meritless
lawsuits targeting free speech on matters of public interest. For the same reason, the
New York statute should be strengthened by making the award of fees automatic for
all prevailing anti-SLAPP defendants, a goal that requires removal of the cause that
currently only permits fee-shifting in cases "commenced or continued without a
substantial basis in fact and law and could not b.e supported by a substantial
argwnent for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law."
TWDC respectfully thanks you for your time and thoughtfulness, and hopes you will
consider its recommendations on this important free speech issue.
Sincerely,
Lisa Pitney
Vice President, Government Relations
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street. Burtank. CA 91521-1151 2

Tel 818 560.1719 Fax 818.846.8406
000044
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION, INC.
1600 Eye St. NW, Washington DC 20006
(202) 293-1966
Vans Stevenson
Senior Vice President, State Government Affairs
VIA EMAIL ONLY

Governor of New York State
State Capitol Building
Nov. 3, 2020
Re: Anti-SLAPP Bill (S.52-A I A.5991-A)
On behalf of the Motion Picture Association, Inc. ("MPA") and our member
studios, 1 I respectfully urge you to sign S.52-A / A.5991-A (the "Bill"), which amends
and strengthens New York's existing anti-SLAPP statute.
Anti-SLAPP statutes, which now exist in 32 states and the District of Columbia,
provide a powerful tool for those who are unjustly sued for the exercise of their free
speech rights on public issues. The MPA's members, as well as their affiliated news
organizations, are frequent users of such statutes, which help ensure that their First
Amendment rights to entertain and inform the public are not chilled by meritless lawsuits.
As you know, New York is a major center of film and television production, as
well as the home to the headquarters of many prominent news oFganizations. However,
its existing anti-SLAPP statute, found at Civil Rights Law section 70-a, is too narrow to
protect the free speech rights of our members and other New York companies that engage
in constitutionally protected speech. The Bill that awaits your signature significantly
broadens the scope of section 70-a, strengthening protections for free expression in New
York, and helping to maintain the Empire State's status as the media capital of the world.
And the Bill will benefit not just the MP A's members and similar companies, but any
New York citizens who speak out on public issues.
1
The MP A's members are the six major American producers and distributors of film, television and
streaming entertainment: Netflix Studios LLC; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures
Entertainment Inc.; Universal City Studios LLC; Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; and Warner Bros.
Entertainment Inc.
000 045
New York deserves a modem, strong anti-SLAPP statute. We thus respectfully
request that you sign the Bill without delay.
Very truly yours,
Vans Stevenson
000046
RENT STABILIZATION ASSOCIATION • 123 William Street • New York, NY 10038
Joseph Strasburg 212-214-n22

President 212-732--0617
November 4, 2020

Albany, NY 12224
On behalf of the 25,000 members of RSA who own or manage approximately one million
apartments in the City of New York, I am writing to urge that S.52-A/A.5991-A be amended as a
condition of signature.
This legislation amends both the Civil Rights Law and the Civil Practice Law and Rules in relation
to actions arising from "strategic lawsuits against public participation," commonly known as
SLAPP lawsuits. The existing provisions of the Civil Rights Law protect persons who participate
in matters relating to the public interest from retaliatory lawsuits. Among its provisions, the
legislation would mandate the payment to such persons of the costs and attorneys' fees they incur
in the course of their defense where the lawsuit "was commenced or continued without a
substantial basis in fact and law." Further, the CPLR amendments would expand upon existing
provisions of law relating to stays of pending proceedings when a motion to dismiss is made by
such persons in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Rights Law.
We have no qualms or concerns regarding the applicability of the substance of such legislation to
litigation commenced on or after the date of its enactment. Rather, our concerns are premised
upon the applicability of the legislation to already pending proceedings and the inequitable and,
potentially, unconstitutional application of the legislation to such pending proceedings. In fact,
the legislation, as initially introduced, expressly provided by its own tenns that it applied only to
newly-commenced cases. However, during the l~gislative process, it was amended to provide
otherwise. It is this provision- and this provision 'only- which we urge should be amended and
restored to its original terms so that it is clear and unambiguous that it shall only apply to cases
commenced on and after the date of enactment.
Recent case law supports our view. Less than one year ago, in December, 2019, the Court of
Appeals invalidated an analogous retroactive scheme in Regina Metropolitan v. DHCR. In Regina,
the Court considered the applicability of newly •enacted legislation, known as the Housing Stability
and Tenant Protection Act, to matters then pending at the agency and in the courts. In Regina, too,
adverse substantive and financial consequences arose from the retroactivity. In addressing the
constitutional challenge to the retroactive provision, the Court, in an exhaustive 31 •page majority
decision, analyzed whether the presumption against retroactive application of statutes was rebutted
OOOO!r7
and, if so, whether doing so "comports with fundamental notions of substantial justice embodied
in the Due Process Clause."
The Court of Appeals, in ruling solely on the issue of retroactivity and not opining whatsoever on
the remainder of the law, ruled that "Because such application of these amendments to past conduct
would not comport with our retroactivity jurisprudence or the requirements of due process, we
resolve these claims pursuant to the law [then] in effect. .. ."
Based upon the foregoing, we urge that the foregoing legislation be returned to the Legislature for
amendment as a condition of signature.
Sincerely,
- ._· - .
1e,4.
.......
.
-
Joseph Strasburg
000048
8 entertainment~
software
association
SUBMITTED VIA ELECTONIC MAIL

Albany, NY 12224
Noyember 4, 2020
RE: New York Assembly Bill 5991-A
The Entertainment Software Association ("ESA") supports New York Assembly Bill 5991-A and
respectfully requests that you act favorably by enacting it into law. The bill would revise and
strengthen New York's current anti-SLAPP statute, Civ. Rts. L. §70-a. Importantly, it would
further protect the First Amendment rights of New York residents and businesses, including
ESA's members with headquarters in the state of New York. Nearly a decade ago, in Brown v.
Entertainment Merchants Association & Entertainment Software Association (2011), the U.S.
Supreme Court confirmed that video games are protected speech. We have a vested interest in
the legislation on your desk as much as the motion picture, news, and publishing industries that
also support the bill.
ESA is the national organization whose members publish computer and video games for video
game consoles, personal computers, handheld and mobile devices, and the internet. ESA
represents the major game platform providers and almost all of the major video game
publishers in the United States. ESA's member companies are leaders in bringing creative and
innovative software, products, and services into American homes. These companies support
more than 428,000 jobs across the country with compensation that averages $121,459, more
than double the national average. New York alone is home to 141 video game companies, 29
higher education programs in game design, and 8 collegiate varsity esports teams. In 2019, the
New York based companies employed almost workers 5,000 and contributed $976 million
directly to the state's economy.
Since the creation of the first electronic game in the 1950s, video games have evolved into
complex works that play like interactive movies. Many video games have multi-dimensional
characters, complex storylines, and carefully crafted dialogue, with some works featuring well-
known public figures both famous and infamous. Whether fact-based, fictional, or somewhere
in between, many of today's video games refer to or incorporate real-life historical and cultural
Entertainment Software Association • 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW • Suite 300 West• Washington, DC 20001 • 202.223.2400
000049
icons to create realistic interactive environments that facilitate expression, enhance
verisimilitude, and enrich the user experience.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is fundamental to the continued vitality of the
video game industry. Free speech protections for video game developers and publishers sustain
the industry's groundbreaking experiences in interactive entertainment. The Supreme Court
has said that "Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games
communicate ideas-and even social messages-through many familiar literary devices (such
as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such
as the player's interaction with the virtual world)."
Despite the protections afforded by the First Amendment, our members have increasingly been
targeted by overzealous plaintiffs who believe that they, without evidence, have been
incorrectly portrayed in video games. Because of these legal actions and because the costs of a
successful defense can be the same or greater than what the damage awards would have been,
publishers tend to become self-censors unless they are assured freedom from frivolous
lawsuits.
To maintain a vibrant free market for video game creators that employ thousands of New
Yorkers, producers and distributors of video games need legal protections that mitigate
expensive litigation that chills free speech.
For the past 25 years, one of our principal goals has been to protect the industry from the
burden and expense of lawsuits that target the exercise of their First Amendment rights. ESA
has supported legislation that would allow a defendant to argue that a Plaintiff's claim is
deficient on First Amendment and other grounds, and to permit the introduction of
countervailing evidence at the motion to dismiss stage, the inclusion of which would help
defendants avoid legal expenses related to discovery later in the litigation.
We strongly support anti-SLAPP statutes that enhance the protection of the First Amendment
by providing a mechanism for the early, quick, and efficient resolution of lawsuits that attack
the exercise of free speech rights. We are hopeful that a new anti-SLAPP law will end these
types of lawsuits in the state, with the money saved from litigation costs re-invested in other
ways that benefit our industry's talented New York workforce.
For the reasons explained above, ESA respectfully urges you to sign this important piece of
legislation.
Sincerely,
Tara C. F. Ryan
Entertainment Software Association
Vice President, State Government Affairs
Entertainment Software Association • 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW • Suite 300 West• Washington, DC 20001 • 202.223.2400
00005C
STATE OF NEW YORK
5991--A
Cal. No. 226
IN ASSEMBLY
February 26, 2019
Introduced by M. of A. WEINSTEIN, SEAWRIGHT, ABINANTI, LUPARDO, SIMOTAS,

TAYLOR, STECK -- read once and referred to the Committee on Judiciary
-- ordered to a third reading, amended and ordered reprinted, retain-
ing its place on the order of third reading

The PeoP.le of the State of New York, reP.resented in Senate and Assem-
blY., do enact as follows:

3 read as follows: ·
s stration., including an adjudication P.Ursuant to subdivision (g) of rule
6 thirtY.-two hundred eleven or subdivision (h) of rule thirty-two hundred
7 tweive of the civil P.ractice law and rules,. that the action involving
11 existing law;
15 (a) An "action involving public petition and participation" is [att
16 aetien,] g claim[, ePess elaim eP eeuntePelaiM feP damages that is
17 hPeught hy a puhlie applieant eP pePmittee, and is matePially Pelated te
18 any effePts ef the defendant te PepePt en, eemment en, Pule en, ehal
19 lenge eP eppese sueh applieatien eP pePMissien] based UP.on:
20 {!)-MY. communication in a place OP.en to the P.Ublic or a public forum
21 in connection with an issue of public interest; or
22 . {1) anY. other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the
23 constitutional right of free SP.eech in connection with an issue of
24 P.Ublic interest, or in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional

[-] is old law to be omitted.
LBD04075-05-0
2/5
7/23/2020 Legislative lnfonnation - LBDC
A. 5991--A 2
1 (b) ["P1:1blie applieant eP pePmittee" shall mean any pePsen whe has
2 applied feP eP ebtained a pePmit, 2ening ehange, lease, lieense, eePtif
3 ieate eP etheP entitlement fep use eP pePmissien te aet fpem any ge¥ePn
4 ment bedy, eP any pePsen with an intePest, eenneetien eP affiliatien
5 with sueh pePsen that is matePially Pelated te sueh applieatien eP
6 pePmissien] "Claim" includes anY. lawsuit, cause of action, cross-claim,_
7 counterclaim, or other judicial P.leading or filing reguesting relief.
10 expression.
11 [ (d) "Ge•.,epnment bedy" shall mean any munieipality, the state, any
12 etheP pelitieal subdi¥isien eP ageney ef sueh, the fedePal ge¥ePnment,
13 any publie benefit eePpePatien, eP any publie a1:1thePity, beaPd, eP
14 eemmissien.] _(g_) "Public interest" shall be construed broadlY., and shall
15 mean anY. subject other than a purely_P.rivate matter.
16 § 3. Subdivision (g) of rule 3211 of the civil practice law and rules,
17 as added by chapter 767 of the laws of 1992, is amended to read as
18 follows:
19 (g) [StandaPds] StaY. of P.roceedings and standards for motions to
20 dismiss in certain cases involving public petition and participation. !...
21 A motion to dismiss based on paragraph seven of subdivision (a) of this
22 section, in which the moving party has demonstrated that the action,
23 claim, cross claim or counterclaim subject to the motion is an action
24 involving public petition and participation as defined in paragraph (a)
25 of subdivision one of section seventy-six-a of the civil rights law,
26 shall be granted unless the party responding to the motion demonstrates
27 that the cause of action has a substantial basis in law or is supported
28 by a substantial argument for an extension, modification or reversal of
29 existing law. The court shall grant preference in the hearing of such
30 motion.
31 2. In making its determination on a motion to dismiss made P.Ursuant to
32 P.aragraP.h one of this subdivision, the court shall consider the plead-
33 ing~, and SUP.P.Orting and OP.P.Osing affidavits stating the facts upon
34 which the action or defense is based. No determination made by the court
35 on a motion to dismiss brought under this section, nor the fact of that
36 determination, shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the
37 case, or in any subseguent action, and no burden of proof or degree of
38 P.roof otherwise apP.licable shall be affected by that determination in
39 anY. later stage of the case or in any subseguent P.roceeding.
40 3. All discoverY.,_P.ending hearing~ and motions in the action shall be
41 staY.ed UP.On the filing of a motion made P.Ursuant to this section. The
42 staY. shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on
43 the motion. The court, on noticed motion and upon a showing_by the
44 nonmoving_P.artY.,~Y. affidavit or declaration under P.enalty of periu.!:Y.
45 that, for SP.ecified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justi-
46 fY. its OP.P.Osition,~Y. order that SP.ecified discovery be conducted
47 notwithstanding this subdivision. Such discoveryJ_j£__granted, shall be
48 limited to the issues raised in the motion to dismiss.
49 4. For P.UrP.oses of this section, "comP.laint" includes "cross-comp-
50 laint" and "petition",__"P.laintiff" includes "cross-complainant" and
51 :P.etitioner", and "defendant" includes "cross-defendant" and "respond-
52 ent."
53 § 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
3/5
EXHIBIT 19
STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
52
IN SENATE
(Prefiled)
January 9, 2019
___________


3 read as follows:
11 existing law;

LBD04075-01-9
S. 52 2

12 expression.
16 commission.]

Lukasz Gottwald Et Al V Kesha Rose Sebert

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lukasz Gottwald Et Al V Kesha Rose Sebert

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 04/15/2022 06:48 PM 2021-03036

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2022

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

LUKASZ GOTTWALD, p/k/a Dr.

Plaintiffs- Appellate Case No.: 2021-03036

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that; upon the annexed affirmation of Cory D.

Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, to be held at the Courthouse

Senator Hoylman leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of Defendant-

Respondent Kesha Sebert.

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants Attorneys for Defendant-Respondent

Christine Lepera Daniel M. Petrocelli

LUKASZ GOTTWALD, p/k/a Dr.

Plaintiffs- Appellate Case No.: 2021-03036

pursuant to CPLR 2106:

1. I am an associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (“Quinn

the proposed brief as amicus curiae is being submitted herewith.

relation to actions involving public petition and participation” (“Anti-SLAPP

3. Senator Hoylman’s experience, advocacy and sponsorship of the Anti-

intent underlying the Anti-SLAPP Amendments regarding retroactive application.

4. Without the perspective of Senator Hoylman, this Court may “be

deprived of a resource that might have been of assistance.” Neonatology Assocs.,

5. Quinn Emanuel is authorized by Senator Hoylman to submit this

below are referenced in the proposed amicus brief (Exhibit 1).

6. Appellants’ and Respondent’s counsel have been notified of this

motion. Respondent consents to this motion; Appellants have not consented.

7. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy a document available

reflects is titled “New York State bill jackets - L-1992-CH-0767.”

8. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of a digital printout of

the bibliographic entry referenced in paragraph 7, supra.

9. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and accurate copy of 1992 Sess. Law

News of N.Y. Ch. 767 (A. 4299) (MicKinney’s), available at

10. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and accurate copy of a digital printout of

2012 N.Y. Assembly Bill A10594 (June 7, 2012) available at

11. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and accurate copy of a digital printout of

2013 N.Y. Assembly Bill A856 (Jan. 9, 2013), available at

12. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and accurate copy of a digital printout of

2014 N.Y. Senate Bill S7280 (May 9, 2014), available at

2015 N.Y. Assembly Bill A258 (Jan. 7, 2015), available at

14. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and accurate copy of a digital printout of

2015 N.Y. Senate Bill S1638 (Jan. 13, 2015), available at

15. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and accurate copy of a digital printout

of 2017 N.Y. Senate Bill S68 (Jan. 4, 2017), available at

16. Attached as Exhibit 11 is a true and accurate copy of a digital printout

of 2017 N.Y. Assembly Bill A1413 (Jan. 12, 2017), available at

17. Attached as Exhibit 12 is a true and accurate copy of a digital printout

18. Attached as Exhibit 13 is a true and accurate copy of a digital printout

2020), available at https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s52/

20. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a true and accurate copy of a digital printout

Back: Governor Signs Hoylman/Weinstein Legislation To Crack Down on Meritless

Lawsuits Used to Silence Critics, (November 10, 2020), available at

Bill S52A (Jan. 9, 2019), available at https://legislation.nysenate.gov/

News of N.Y. Ch. 250 (A-5991-A) (McKinney’s), available at

for L. 2020, Ch. 250.

Bill S52 (Jan. 9, 2019), available at https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/

WHEREFORE, on behalf of proposed amicus curiae Senator Hoylman, I

DATED: New York, New York

New York Supreme Court

LUKASZ GOTTWALD p/k/a Dr. Luke, KASZ MONEY, INC.

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SENATOR BRAD HOYLMAN

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................................................................ 1

I. THE HISTORY OF THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE