- Lunney v. Prodigy Services Co.
Infobox New York COA case
Litigants=Lunney v. Prodigy Services Co.
ArgueDate=
ArgueYear=
DecideDate=December 2
DecideYear=1999
FullName=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=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=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.
ChiefJudge=Judith S. Kaye
AssociateJudges=Joseph W. Bellacosa ,George Bundy Smith ,Howard A. Levine ,Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick ,Richard C. Wesley ,Albert M. Rosenblatt
Majority=Rosenblatt
JoinMajority=Kaye, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley
NotParticipating=Bellacosa
LawsApplied="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 internetchatroom provider, was not considered a publisher of defamatory material posted from an imposter account due to its passive role in monitoring the chatrooms.External links
* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ny&vol=i99&invol=0165 Decision text at FindLaw]
* [http://www.nationallawcenter.org/docs/doc_download-28.html petition for certorari]
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.