Scott Stringer Sues His Accuser For Defamation
Likely To Be Dismissed Under NY's 1-Year Statute of Limitations
Earlier today, former New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer1 filed a defamation suit against Jean Kim, who publicly accused him of sexual assault in 2021, when Mr. Stringer was running for the Democratic nomination for NYC mayor. According to the Complaint, Ms. Kim and Mr. Stringer had a consensual sexual relationship in 2001, when he was a candidate for Public Advocate and she volunteered for his campaign. Again, according to Mr. Stringer, at the time of their relationship, he was 41, she was 30 and both were unmarried.
The 2021 Allegations Against Stringer
On April 28, 2021, Ms. Kim held a public press conference (revealing her name) and stated that she had been sexually assaulted by Mr. Stringer in 2001. According to Ms. Kim, Mr. Stringer demanded sex from her, using the most profane language, “He kept saying, “Why won’t you fuck me? Why won’t you fuck me?” Ms. Kim further stated that Mr. Stringer sexually assaulted her:
I was talking to Stringer about the [2001] primary when without warning, and without my consent, he kissed me using his tongue, put his hand down my pants and groped me inside my underpants. I pulled away and tried to avoid him. He warned me not to tell anyone about it.
Stringer’s Allegations Of Defamation
Mr. Stringer’s complaint contends that Ms. Kim’s allegations were false and defamatory. Although part of his complaint contends that Ms. Kim made false statements about her role in his 2001 campaign and who introduced them, the central factual issue raised by the Complaint is whether Ms. Kim’s contention that Mr. Stringer sexually assaulted her was false.
The Complaint does not allege that Ms. Kim was lying when she claimed that he groped her or put his hand down Ms. Kim’s pants, but only that she was lying when she said it was without consent.
For the reasons set forth below, I would be surprised if the question of consent is ever litigated.2
New York Has A One-Year Statute Of Limitations For Defamation
Under New York law, any claim for defamation (libel or slander) must be brought with one year of the event giving rise to the claim. CPLR 215(3) states “The following actions must be brought within one year . . . an action to recover damages for . . . libel, slander, [or] false words causing special damages . . . .”
Stringer Filed His Claim More Than One Year After Kim Made Her Allegations Public
Mr. Stringer did not file his defamation claim until today, December 12, 2022. Ms. Kim made her claims that he sexually assaulted her public on April 28, 2021. Clearly, April 28, 2021 is more than one year before December 12, 2022. Accordingly, Mr. Stringer’s claim will be subject to be dismissed for failure to comply with the statute of limitations, unless an exception applies.
Stringer Contends That His Complaint Is Timely, Because Ms. Kim’s Allegations Were Republished In August 2022
Mr. Stringer’s Complaint (in paragraphs 47 - 51) alleges that Ms. Kim caused her allegations against him to be republished in August 2021, as part of the contentious primary for Congress between longtime NY Representatives Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney. According to the Complaint, Rep. Maloney attacked Rep. Nadler for accepting the support of Mr. Stringer, “a man accused of sexual assault.” The Complaint further alleges, without elaboration, that this statement by Rep. Maloney was prodded by Ms. Kim, who “on August 3, 2022 . . . was seen at a campaign event with [Rep. Maloney].”
Although the Complaint alleges that Ms. Kim spoke to Rep. Maloney about her allegations against Mr. Stringer, it does not provide any details. It does not allege what words were used, when they were spoken, or who was present. Nor does it allege that Ms. Kim took any particular steps to have Rep. Maloney repeat those allegations. The only statement in the Complaint is:
New York’s Single Publication Rule Likely Forecloses Stringer’s Complaint
Mr. Stringer’s attempt to get out from under the 1-year statute of limitations does not appear to be likely to succeed. New York applies a “single publication rule”, which means that:
the publication of a defamatory statement in a single issue of a newspaper, or a single issue of a magazine, although such publication consists of thousands of copies widely distributed, is, in legal effect, one publication which gives rise to one cause of action and that the applicable [s]tatute of [l]imitation[s] runs from the date of that publication.
In order to avoid dismissal under the statute of limitations, Mr. Stringer would have to allege (and then prove) that Ms. Kim made a new “republication” of her allegations against him, less than one year ago.
Republication, retriggering the period of limitations, occurs upon a separate aggregate publication from the original, on a different occasion, which is not merely "a delayed circulation of the original edition" (Rinaldi v Viking Penguin, 52 NY2d at 435; Restatement [Second] of Torts § 577A, Comment d, at 210, supra). The justification for this exception to the single publication rule is that the subsequent publication is intended to and actually reaches a new audience
I believe that the Court is likely to conclude that Mr. Stringer’s Complaint lacks the factual specificity required to allow a conclusion that Ms. Kim said anything to Rep. Maloney in August 2022 that would constitute a new “republication” of her allegation against him. The most likely outcome would be dismissal of the case. I could also imagine that Mr. Stringer would be allowed limited discovery from Rep. Maloney and Ms. Kim about whether she made a new statement to Rep. Maloney at that time. In the absence of affirmative evidence of a new statement, I doubt that the case would be allowed to move forward.
Why Did Stringer Wait So Long?
There is nothing in the Complaint that explains why Mr. Stringer waited until now to file his Complaint. There is no allegation that there was anything blocking him from filing suit against Ms. Kim on or before April 28, 2022.
Mr. Stringer, however, did make statements to the New York Times about the delay, and they are likely to hurt his case.
He went on to further state:
These statements make it appear that Mr. Stringer made a calculated decision to wait, but now wants a do-over.
Conclusion
Mr. Stringer has re-opened the allegations of sexual assault against him. Those allegations will now be disseminated far beyond the original audience. I would not be surprised if the Court quickly bounces Mr. Stringer’s Complaint, leaving him worse off than if he had just left bad enough alone.
We will see.
Disclosures: I volunteered for Scott Stringer’s campaign for Comptroller in 2013. I also have met Mr. Stringer on several occasions, socially.
I have no idea whether Ms. Kim’s allegations or Mr. Stringer’s denials are accurate. No one should interpret this article as conveying any opinion on that (very important) topic.