From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Lunney v. Prodigy Services Co. |
|
New York Court of Appeals |
Decided December 2, 1999
|
| Full case name: |
Alexander G. Lunney v. Prodigy Services Company, et al. |
|
| Citations: |
723 N.E.2d 539; 94 N.Y.2d 242; 701 N.Y.S.2d 684 |
|
|
| Prior history: |
Defendant's motion for summary judgment denied, Sup. Ct. Westchester Cty., July 2, 1997; renewed motion for summary judgment denied, Sup. Ct., Jan. 14, 1998; rev'd, 250 A.D.2d 230 (1999) |
|
|
| Subsequent history: |
Cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1098 (2000) |
|
| Holding |
| An internet chatroom provider could not be considered the publisher of defamatory material posted by an imposter account because of its passive role in monitoring the chatrooms. Appellate Division affirmed. |
| Court membership |
| Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye |
| Associate Judges Joseph W. Bellacosa, George Bundy Smith, Howard A. Levine, Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Richard C. Wesley, Albert M. Rosenblatt |
| Case opinions |
Majority by: Rosenblatt
Joined by: Kaye, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley
Bellacosa took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|
Lunney v. Prodigy Services Co., 94 N.Y.2d 242 (1999) is a leading U.S. law case on liability of internet service providers for defamation. The court held that Prodigy, an internet chatroom provider, was not considered a publisher of defamatory material posted from an imposter account due to its passive role in monitoring the chatrooms.
[edit] External links
