Firm Update No. 2026-02本所动态 2026-02 号

Pending: Online Defamation Claims Survive a Motion to Dismiss, With Jurisdictional Discovery Ordered审理中：网络诽谤请求在驳回诉讼动议中获保留，法院命令就管辖权进行证据开示

Practice领域: Civil Litigation民事诉讼
Jurisdiction管辖: Supreme Court, Queens County纽约州最高法院皇后区分院
Our role本所角色: Counsel to the plaintiff原告律师
Status进展: Pending; motion to dismiss denied Jan. 2026; renewed motion to dismiss awaiting decision审理中；驳回诉讼动议于2026年1月被拒；被告再次提出的驳回动议待裁决

IFacts事实

The client sued over online posts that accused him of serious misconduct he was never charged with. The defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction.客户因网络帖文起诉，帖文指控其实施了从未被起诉的严重不当行为。被告以未陈述诉因及缺乏对人管辖权为由申请驳回诉讼。

IIPleadings诉辩文书

Complaint (June 2025). The client sued an individual over posts in WeChat groups and messages sent to third parties that named him as the organizer of a violent crime. He was never arrested, charged or named in any criminal case. The complaint pleads defamation per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress.起诉状（2025年6月）。当事人起诉一名个人，起因是对方在微信群中发帖并向第三方发送信息，称当事人是一宗暴力犯罪的组织者。当事人从未被逮捕、起诉，也未在任何刑事案件中被点名。起诉状主张本身构成诽谤（defamation per se）及故意造成精神痛苦。

Defendant's response. The defendant has not answered. He chose to attack the complaint first by pre-answer motion, and under the court's order his answer is not due until twenty days after jurisdictional discovery ends.被告的回应。被告尚未提交答辩状，而是先以答辩前动议攻击起诉状。依法院裁定，其答辩期限为管辖权证据开示结束后二十日。

IIIMotions and Court Orders动议及法院裁定

Plaintiff's order to show cause (June 2025). With the complaint, the firm sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop further posts and require removal of earlier ones. On June 23, 2025 the court declined to sign the order to show cause, and the case went forward on the damages claims.原告的诉前禁令申请（2025年6月）。本所在起诉时一并申请临时限制令及初步禁令，要求停止继续发帖并删除既有帖子。法院于2025年6月23日拒绝签发该指令，案件就损害赔偿请求继续进行。

Defendant's motion to dismiss, Mot. Seq. 2. The defendant moved under CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a claim and under CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The firm opposed.被告的驳回动议（第2号动议）。被告依据CPLR第3211(a)(7)条以未陈述诉因为由、依据第3211(a)(8)条以缺乏属人管辖权为由申请驳回。本所提出反对。

Short form order, January 28, 2026 (entered February 3, 2026). The court denied the (a)(7) motion in its entirety. It held that defamation per se was adequately pleaded and that the emotional-distress claim survives at the pleading stage. It denied the (a)(8) motion without prejudice and ordered sixty days of jurisdictional discovery. It also disregarded foreign-language exhibits submitted by both sides that lacked a translator's affidavit under CPLR 2101(b).2026年1月28日简式裁定（2026年2月3日登记）。法院全部驳回被告依(a)(7)条提出的动议，认定本身构成诽谤的请求已充分陈述，精神痛苦请求在诉状阶段亦可成立；对依(a)(8)条提出的动议不影响其再次提出地予以驳回，并命令进行六十日的管辖权证据开示。法院同时对双方提交的未附CPLR第2101(b)条翻译人宣誓书的外文证据一概不予考虑。

Defendant's renewed motion to dismiss, Mot. Seq. 3. Filed May 1, 2026 and fully submitted June 17, 2026. The court has not decided it. In August 2026 the defendant changed counsel by consent.被告再次提出的驳回动议（第3号动议）。于2026年5月1日提出，2026年6月17日全部提交完毕，法院尚未裁决。2026年8月，被告经同意更换了代理律师。

IVQuestion Presented争议问题

What must a defamation plaintiff plead to survive a motion to dismiss, and what happens when the defendant contests jurisdiction?诽谤案原告须如何陈述方能挺过驳回诉讼动议？被告质疑管辖权时又如何处理？

VRelevant Law相关法律

CPLR 3211(a)(7), (a)(8), (d): failure to state a cause of action; lack of personal jurisdiction; jurisdictional discoveryCPLR 3211(a)(7), (a)(8), (d)：未能陈述诉因；缺乏属人管辖权；管辖权证据开示

Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 (1994): liberal construction of pleadings; facts accepted as true; cognizable legal theoryLeon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 (1994)：诉状从宽解释；事实推定为真；可认可的法律理论

Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429 (1992): defamation per se; serious crime category; presumed damages; qualified privilegeLiberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429 (1992)：本身构成诽谤；严重犯罪类别；推定损害；有限特权

Peterson v. Spartan Indus., 33 N.Y.2d 463 (1974): jurisdictional disclosure; sufficient start; facts essential to justify oppositionPeterson v. Spartan Indus., 33 N.Y.2d 463 (1974)：管辖权证据开示；初步证明；反对动议所必需的事实

CPLR 2101(b): form of papers; English language requirement; translator's affidavitCPLR 2101(b)：文书格式；英文要求；翻译人宣誓书

Greenberg v. Spitzer, 155 A.D.3d 27 (2d Dep’t 2017): defamation pleading; statement of fact versus opinion; actual maliceGreenberg v. Spitzer, 155 A.D.3d 27 (2d Dep’t 2017)：诽谤诉状；事实陈述与意见之分；实际恶意

Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115 (1993): intentional infliction of emotional distress; extreme and outrageous conductHowell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115 (1993)：故意造成精神痛苦；极端且恶劣的行为

VICurrent Stage当前阶段

The case is at the pleading stage. The court has sustained both claims, and the open question is whether New York has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, which the defendant's renewed motion puts back before the court. No preliminary conference has been held, and no answer is due until the jurisdiction question is resolved.案件处于诉状阶段。法院已维持两项请求，尚待解决的问题是纽约州法院对被告是否具有属人管辖权，被告的第二次驳回动议再次将该问题提交法院。法院尚未召开初步会议；在管辖权问题解决前，被告无须答辩。

Open issues. Long-arm jurisdiction over online publication; jurisdictional discovery; the outrageous-conduct element of intentional infliction of emotional distress and its overlap with defamation; authentication and certified translation of foreign-language statements.待决问题。对网络发布行为的长臂管辖；管辖权证据开示；故意造成精神痛苦请求中的“极端恶劣行为”要件及其与诽谤请求的重叠；外文言论的认证及经认证的翻译。

Client details are withheld to protect confidentiality. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.为保护客户隐私，相关信息已隐去。过往结果不保证类似案件的结果。