## Facts

- A publisher released a humor anthology containing a four-page parody, “Eloise Returns,” set at the Plaza Hotel and referencing real-world elements associated with the original “Eloise” character.
- The parody’s opening illustration depicted a men’s restroom at the Plaza with crude graffiti on the walls and mirror.
- Among the graffiti was the statement: “Mr. Salomone was a child molester!!”
- The plaintiff, the real-life manager of the Plaza Hotel, alleged the statement was false, referred to him personally, and accused him of a serious crime.
- The plaintiff sought substantial damages but did not plead special damages, relying on libel per se.
- Defendants argued the work was clearly parody and that no reasonable reader would treat the graffiti as a factual assertion.

## Issues

1. Whether, considering the publication as a whole, the statement accusing the plaintiff of being a “child molester” was reasonably capable of a defamatory factual meaning (libel per se) despite its placement in a humorous parody.
2. Whether the court could determine as a matter of law at an early stage that the statement was nonactionable humor, or whether the meaning and reader interpretation required submission to a jury.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss (or, in substance, for summary judgment).
- The court held the accusation of child molestation was the type of criminal imputation that constitutes libel per se if understood as a statement of fact.
- The court found it could not rule as a matter of law that the statement would necessarily be understood only as a joke.
- Because the statement was reasonably susceptible to a defamatory interpretation, the case could proceed, with interpretation left to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- A written false statement imputing commission of a serious crime is libel per se, allowing presumed damages without pleading special damages.
- Defamatory meaning is assessed under the ordinary-reader standard, considering the entire publication and its context.
- Humor, satire, or parody does not automatically immunize a publication; an accusation may be actionable if a reasonable reader could understand it as a factual claim about an identifiable person.
- If language is susceptible to both defamatory and nondefamatory meanings, interpretation is generally a jury question rather than resolvable on the pleadings.
- Courts are cautious about removing from the jury serious criminal accusations made about private individuals.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the libel claim to proceed because an accusation of child molestation directed at an identifiable private person, even when presented as restroom graffiti in a parody, could be read by reasonable readers as a factual and defamatory imputation of serious criminal conduct, making the meaning a question for the jury.


Salomone v. Macmillan Publ’g Co., 411 N.Y.S.2d 105 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1978)