DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p02003.png

Case 18-2868, Document 287, 08/09/2019, 2628251, Page55 of 76 v. Costa-Gavras, 580 F. Supp. 1082, 1096 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); see also Hoffman v. Landers, 146 A.D.2d 744, 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1989) (“One who makes a defamatory statement is not responsible for its recommunication without his authority or request by another over whom he has no control.”). Where a defendant “had no actual part in composing or publishing,” he cannot be held liable “without disregarding the settled rule of law that no man is bound for the tortious act of another over whom he has not a master’s power of control.” Davis, 580 F. Supp. at 1096 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The New York Court of Appeals summarized New York’s republication liability standard in Geraci v. Probst, 938 N.E.2d 917 (N.Y. 2010), stating that one who . . . prints and publishes a libel[] is not responsible for its voluntary and unjustifiable repetition, without his authority or request, by others over whom he has no control and who thereby make themselves liable to the person injured, and that such repetition cannot be considered in law a necessary, natural and probable consequence of the original slander or libel. 938 N.E.2d at 921 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, “conclusive evidence of lack of actual authority [is] sufficiently dispositive that the [court] ‘ha[s] no option but to dismiss the case... .’” Davis, 580 F. Supp. at 1096 55