## Facts

- Alphonse W. Salomone was the real-life manager of the Plaza Hotel when the children’s book *Eloise* was published in 1955 and later became a senior hotel executive.
- The 1955 *Eloise* book included a drawing and caption referring to “Mr. Salomone” as “the Manager,” reflecting the name of the Plaza’s actual manager.
- In 1976, Macmillan Publishing Company and related defendants published *Titters: The First Collection of Humor by Women*, which included a four-page parody titled *Eloise Returns*.
- In the parody, Eloise is portrayed as 26 years old and still living at the Plaza, now depicted as a sophisticated and sexually uninhibited adult.
- The parody’s opening full-page drawing shows Eloise in a men’s restroom with vulgar graffiti; she has written “Eloise Returns” on a mirror in lipstick.
- Beneath those words on the mirror appears the statement: “Mr. Salomone was a child molester!!”
- Salomone sued for libel, claiming the statement was defamatory and amounted to libel per se.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the work was humorous parody and that Salomone had not suffered damages recoverable in a libel action.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, reasoning that issues such as whether the work was parody were for a jury.
- On damages, Salomone pleaded no special damages and conceded he suffered no financial loss or physical injury attributable to the publication; he sought recovery for reputational injury and mental anguish.
- Salomone could not identify anyone who believed the accusation or who thought less of him because of the publication.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment dismissing a libel claim is proper where the plaintiff pleads no special damages, concedes no financial or physical harm, and offers no proof of actual reputational injury, even though the publication contains a facially defamatory accusation.
2. Whether claimed embarrassment and mental anguish, without proof of reputational harm or other legally compensable damages, can sustain a defamation action.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the order that had denied defendants’ and third-party defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
- The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, without costs or disbursements.
- The court concluded that, even assuming the publication caused Salomone embarrassment and anguish, he had not shown damages compensable in law.

## Legal Principles

- A defamation plaintiff must show damages that the law recognizes as recoverable; not every hurt caused by offensive speech is compensable.
- Where a plaintiff pleads no special damages and concedes no financial loss or physical injury from the publication, the claim fails absent proof of actual reputational harm.
- Emotional distress (such as embarrassment and anguish), standing alone and unsupported by proof that the publication harmed reputation in the eyes of others, is insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no triable issue on the element of damages, including when the plaintiff cannot identify any changed opinions or other concrete reputational effects traceable to the statement.

## Conclusion

Because Salomone pleaded no special damages, conceded he suffered no financial or physical harm, and could not produce evidence that anyone believed the accusation or lowered their estimation of him as a result, the Appellate Division held he suffered no damages compensable in law and dismissed the libel action on summary judgment.


Salomone v. Macmillan Publishing Company, 77 A.D. 2d 501 (1980)