Judge finds no showing of actual malice
Mariah Carey has won dismissal of the remaining defamation claims her brother Morgan brought over her 2020 bestselling memoir, The Meaning of Mariah Carey, ending a legal fight that had run five years. In a ruling dated Monday and obtained by Rolling Stone, Justice Leslie A. Stroth of the New York State Supreme Court concluded that Morgan had not shown his sister acted with actual malice when she made the statements he contested.[S1][S2][S3]
Under New York's anti-SLAPP law, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant published a false statement either knowing it was untrue or with reckless disregard for whether it was true. The judge wrote that Morgan offered no proof that Mariah made the statements knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth. She added that an allegation of ill will toward her brother was not enough to meet the pleading requirement for actual malice.[S1]
What Morgan Carey alleged in his suit
On May 28, 2021, Morgan brought the suit, contending the book damaged a reputation he called otherwise excellent and spotless. His filing said the memoir depicted him as violent, claimed he trafficked powdered party favors (meaning cocaine), and described childhood behavioral problems. He further alleged that Mariah drew on their late mother for parts of the material and prioritized sales over confirming whether her statements were true. His claimed damages, he said, were believed to surpass $20 million.[S1]
The court declined to accept that Morgan could prove actual malice just by showing that his ties with his well-known sister had soured. The ruling rested on New York's stricter standard for speech touching public concerns, which calls for proof of knowing falsehood or reckless indifference, not merely personal hostility.[S1]
Both sides respond as an appeal looms
John Rosenberg, an attorney representing Mariah, told Rolling Stone that the singer welcomed the court's finding that her memoir deals with matters of substantial public interest and that her brother's defamation claims were thrown out in full. Rosenberg added that the Grammy winner sees the ruling as significant beyond her own case, because it affirms that writers speaking on issues of public concern should receive wide protection.[S1]
Morgan's attorney, Richard Altman, said in an email that the defense respectfully disagrees with the decision, calling it completely inconsistent with earlier rulings in the case, and that an appeal would be filed very soon. The outcome leaves the memoir's account standing while the dispute moves toward a higher court.[S1]
