The Libel-proof Plaintiff

Lenny “Nails” Dystrka — the man who hit the lead-off home run that sparked the Mets to come back from a 2-0 deficit in the 1986 World Series — has achieved a certain degree of legal notoriety. He has been legally adjudged to be libel-proof. It is now seemingly impossible to defame Lenny…

Dystrka sued his former teammate, pitcher Ron Darilng, for libel over allegations Darling wrote in his autobiography. His lawsuit was just thrown out of court by the Supreme Court of New York. In that decision, the court wrote:

Dykstra was infamous for being, among other things, racist, misogynist, and anti-gay, as well as a sexual predator, a drug-abuser, a thief, and an embezzler. Further, Dykstra had a reputation—largely due to his autobiography—of being willing to do anything to benefit himself and his team, including using steroids and blackmailing umpires . . . Considering this information, which was presumably known to the average reader of the book, this Court finds that, as a matter of law, the reference in the book has not exposed Dykstra to any further “public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace,” or “evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons,” or “deprivation of friendly intercourse in society.

The nature and seriousness of Dykstra’s criminal offenses, which include fraud, embezzlement, grand theft, and lewd conduct and assault with a deadly weapon, and notably the degree of publicity they received, have already established his general bad reputation for fairness and decency far worse than the alleged racially charged bench-jockeying in the reference could . . .

. . . Given the aforesaid litany of stories concerning Dykstra’s poor and mean-spirited behavior particularly toward various groups including racial minorities, women, and the LGBTQ community—this Court finds that, as a matter of law, the reference cannot “induce an evil opinion of [Dykstra] in the minds of right-thinking persons” or “deprive him of their friendly intercourse in society,” as that “evil opinion” has long existed.

Aside from being both amusing and sad (if you were a fan of Nails), this underscores the importance of thoroughly examining the nature & character of someone (or something) who comes after you with claims of defamation. Though such a plaintiff does not have to worry about a glass house argument, it is incumbent upon a defendant to analyze just how much damage could be caused in light of a plaintiff’s prior conduct.