Justice Daniel Martin
Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing Matovcik’s amended complaint, while Matovcik cross-moved for summary judgment. Matovcik sought to recover damages he allegedly sustained from allegedly libelous statements disseminated by defendants in a newspaper article and editorial. The article asserted Matovcik, the former head of a high school English department, “misappropriated” funds that were to be used to pay for workbooks, and converted the money into a “slush fund for the English Department.” The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of Matovcik’s amended complaint, noting documentary evidence failed to establish the truth of certain facts set forth in the article and editorial. Defendants argued Matovcik could not meet his burden of proving the falsity of the publications to the extent such falsity was allegedly defamatory. The court found defendants offered no “new” evidence to establish Matovcik collected fees without the school district’s knowledge or that the monies collected did not also benefit the students. Thus, defendants failed to establish the truth of facts set forth in the article and editorial, denying summary judgment. Yet, as questions of fact remained, Matovcik’s motion was also denied.
