## Facts

- Idris Kabia filed a small-claims action against his son seeking money based on the alleged failure to return family photographs.
- Before the small-claims hearing, a television producer offered the parties an opportunity to resolve the dispute on a televised program in a proceeding styled as an arbitration presided over by Edward I. Koch as “Arbitrator.”
- On the day of taping, Kabia and his son signed an agreement to arbitrate stating the arbitrator’s decision would be final and binding and containing broad releases for the producer and arbitrator, including for statements during the arbitration that a party might consider defamatory.
- Kabia also executed a stipulation discontinuing the small-claims action with prejudice.
- The arbitration was conducted on camera; Koch ruled for Kabia’s son and awarded Kabia no recovery.
- Under the program rules incorporated into the arbitration agreement, the producer paid each party $250 when no award was made; Kabia accepted and deposited the payment.
- Kabia later sued Koch for libel and slander based on statements made during the televised arbitration, alleging Koch called him a “kidnapper” (or used words of similar import) regarding his taking of his infant son in Sierra Leone.
- Koch moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal based on arbitral immunity and the releases in the arbitration agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether the televised proceeding conducted under the parties’ agreement constituted an arbitration under CPLR article 75.
2. If it was an arbitration, whether the arbitrator was protected by arbitral (quasi-judicial) immunity from a defamation suit based on statements made during the proceeding.
3. Whether the agreement’s releases and Kabia’s acceptance of its benefits independently barred the defamation claims, even assuming the alleged words were uttered.

## Decision

- The court granted the defendant’s CPLR 3212 motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
- The court held the proceeding qualified as arbitration because the parties executed an agreement to arbitrate providing for a neutral decision-maker and a final and binding decision substituting for judicial resolution.
- The court held arbitral immunity protected the arbitrator from civil liability for acts and statements made within the scope of the arbitral function, including allegedly defamatory remarks made during the hearing.
- The court also held the releases in the arbitration agreement barred the defamation claims, and Kabia’s acceptance of payment under the agreement supported enforcement of those terms.
- Any factual dispute over the precise wording was not material to the outcome because immunity and the releases foreclosed liability.

## Legal Principles

- A proceeding is treated as arbitration under CPLR article 75 when the parties agree to submit a dispute to a neutral adjudicator whose decision is final and binding and serves as a substitute for a court judgment, even if the forum is nontraditional.
- Arbitrators are entitled to quasi-judicial (arbitral) immunity for conduct integrally related to the arbitral process, including statements made in the course of adjudicating and deciding the dispute.
- Broad contractual releases in an arbitration agreement may bar later tort claims, including defamation claims premised on statements made during the arbitration, where the releasing party knowingly agrees to those terms and accepts the agreement’s benefits.
- On summary judgment, disputes over details immaterial to dispositive defenses (such as immunity and an enforceable release) do not require trial.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Kabia’s defamation action because the televised proceeding constituted a binding arbitration, the arbitrator was immune from liability for statements made in performing the arbitral function, and the arbitration agreement’s express releases independently waived claims for allegedly defamatory statements made during the arbitration.


Kabia v. Koch, 713 N.Y.S.2d 250 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2000)