## Facts

- John Henry Faulk, a well-known radio and television performer, sued Aware, Inc. and its officer Vincent Hartnett for libel.
- Defendants circulated materials within the broadcasting industry accusing Faulk of communist sympathies or affiliations, effectively “blacklisting” him.
- Faulk offered evidence that his career prospects were strong before the publications and that, afterward, employment opportunities sharply declined.
- Industry witnesses projected that Faulk’s future earning potential could have been significantly higher than his historical earnings (which had not exceeded about $35,000 per year).
- A jury awarded $1,000,000 in compensatory damages (against multiple defendants, including Aware and Hartnett) and $1,250,000 in punitive damages (against Aware and Hartnett).
- The appeal focused on whether the damages were excessive rather than on liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the $1,000,000 compensatory damages award in a libel action was excessive in light of plaintiff’s earnings history, proof of future earning capacity, and non-economic harm.
2. Whether the $1,250,000 punitive damages award against Aware and Hartnett was excessive relative to the harm proved and the wrongdoing found by the jury.
3. What limits appellate courts apply when reviewing defamation verdicts alleged to reflect speculation, passion, or prejudice.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reducing damages and otherwise affirmed.
- Compensatory damages were reduced from $1,000,000 to $400,000.
- Punitive damages were reduced to $50,000 against Aware, Inc. and $100,000 against Hartnett.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the modified judgment without opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate courts may reduce defamation verdicts that are excessive or insufficiently supported by the evidentiary record.
- In assessing libel compensatory damages, prior earnings are an important benchmark when claimed earning capacity is cut off, though damages are not strictly capped at the plaintiff’s past income.
- Future earning capacity may be considered if grounded in evidence; projections that invite speculation cannot alone justify extraordinary awards.
- Punitive damages must bear a reasonable relation to the harm proved and the flagrancy of the conduct; punishment cannot be unlimited or purely windfall.

## Conclusion

The court sustained liability for libel but ordered substantial remittitur, holding that both the compensatory and punitive awards exceeded amounts reasonably supported by evidence of Faulk’s earnings history, career disruption, and the degree of defendants’ misconduct.


Faulk v. Aware, Inc., 244 N.Y.S.2d 259 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1963)