This case mentions legal malpractice, and is a variant of the classic “you did me wrong, so I’m suing” trope.  Here, an international investor, is accused of defamation of a well-regarded law firm and its principal.

Morelli v Wey  2016 NY Slip Op 32487(U)  December 16, 2016  Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: 153011/16  Judge: Carol R. Edmead.  “In this defamation action, plaintiffs Benedict P. Morelli,(Morelli), Arlene B. Morelli (Mrs. Morelli), and The Morelli Law Firm, PLLC f/k/a Morelli Alters Ratner, LLP (Morelli Law Firm) allege that defendants Benjamin Wey (Wey), FNL Media LLC (FNL), and NYGG Capital  LLC d/b/a New York Global Group (NYGG) have waged a campaign to defame them through the publication of numerous false and defamatory statements in their online magazine, blogs, and  social media, in order to injure their professional reputations. Plaintiffs allege that these attacks were prompted by the Morelli  Law Firm’s representation of a former NYGG employee, Hanna Bouveng (Bouveng), in a federal action asserting sexual harassment, retaliation, and defamation claims against defendants herein (see: Bouveng v NYGG Capital LLC, 175 F Supp 3d 280 [SD NY 2016]). Defendants now move, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5), and (7), to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. ”

“Beginning in 2015 and continuing through the present, defendants allegedly repeatedly published over 600 separate false and defamatory statements and images about plaintiffs (id.,¶s 20, 26-72; appendix A to verified complaint). Specifically, defendants accused plaintiffs of numerous criminal or repugnant: acts, including but not limited to, extortion, bank fraud, falsifying evidence, witness intimidation, conspiracy to commit fraud, sexual harassment, and professional misconduct (id.). According to plaintiffs, defendants perpetrated these attacks in order to injure plaintiffs in their profession, business, and livelihoods, though defendants were initially motivated to compromise plaintiffs’ representation of Bouveng (id.,¶¶21, 30, 73). To maximize the damage to plaintiffs’ reputations and livelihoods, defendants or their agents performed internet search engine “optimization” to increase the exposure of their false and defamatory .articles to users of Google and other internet search engines (id, if 23). ”

“Here, contrary to defendants’ contention, as alleged by plaintiffs, defendants did not merely make “a statement that there is an investigation.” Rather, the complaint alleges that defendants published an article entitled “The FBI investigation targets BENEDICT MORELLI [and] ARLENE MORELLI” (verified complaint,¶ 39 [b]), stated that plaintiffs committed “bank fraud” and “massive bank fraud” (id.,¶¶40; 42, 43 [a]), and made statements indicating that plaintiffs are “law violators” with a “long history of committing fraud” (appendix A to verified complaint). 1 In addition, in light of plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants stated that Morelli, a partner of the law firm, was a member of the Ku Klux Klan (verified complaint, irir 4, 72 [c], [d]), plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a cause of action for defamation per se (see Sheridan v Carter, 48 AD3d 444, 446-447 [2d Dept 2008] [domestic worker’s published statements which depicted couple that formerly employer her as racists were defamatory per se]; Herlihy v Metropolitan Museum of Art, 214 AD2d 250, 261 [1st Dept 1995] [complaint stated cause of action for slander per se where it stated that volunteers made statements that former coordinator was anti-Semitic and was biased in her treatment of Jewish,volunteers]): Moreover, plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants stated that plaintiffs.were members of the Mafia or a “gang” and were guilty of a serious crime are sufficient to state a cause of action for defamation per se (see Harris v Queens County Dist. Atty’s Office, 2012 WL 832837, *9 [ED NY 2012] [statement that attorney was security threat to the courthouse was defamatory per se]). For example, defendants allegedly stated that “[t]he court accuses the Morelli mafia of fabricating evidence that resulted in extortion of a Texas based chemical company,” “City National Bank charges the Morelli ‘gang’ members with orchestrating a multi-year money laundering scheme and massive loan frauds,” “Benedict Morelli and his fellow ‘gang members at Morelli Alters Ratner conspired with Morelli’ s wife, Arlene B. Morelli and David Ratner to swindle City National Bank; Batik: United and the Esquire Bank,” “Benedict Morelli and, the con man’s wife Arlene were sued for money laundering,  bank fraud and suspected mafia affiliation,” “[t]he gang at Morelli Alters Ratner is wantonly defrauding City National out of millions of dollars,” “shady lawyers Benedict Morelli, David Ratner, Martha McBrayer extortion ‘mob’ members were finally captured” (verified complaint,¶ 28 [b], 31 [a], 33 [c], 35 [a], 37 [b], 43[c]). Therefore, plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for defamation per se.”