Calling it a one-of-a-kind case, a New York judge has stretched "libel-in-fiction" precedent and ruled that an attorney can sue the producers of “Law & Order” for falsely portraying him as a case-rigging crook.

In a $15 million suit filed in November 2004, Ravi Batra alleged he was the model for the character of Ravi Patel, a corrupt lawyer depicted in a “ripped from the headlines” episode of “Law & Order” entitled “The Floater.”

“This Court finds that it cannot be determined, as a matter of law, that (1) Floater was not 'of and concerning' Batra; and (2) was not likely to be understood as defamatory by the ordinary viewer,” Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Marilyn Shafer said in a March 14 decision.

In the Brooklyn corruption scandal on which the episode was allegedly based, attorney Paul Siminovsky testified that he bribed a judge, Gerald Garson, to decide divorce cases in his favor. Batra was investigated, and never charged, after Garson implicated him in a "judgeship-for-sale" scheme.

The “Law & Order” producers argued in a motion to dismiss that the similarities between Batra and Patel, who share only the same first name, ethnicity, general appearance and occupation, were too superficial for a viewer to identify the real with the fictional persona.

But Shafer denied the motion, finding that because of the “widespread media coverage” of the Garson/Simonovsky scandal, “it would be reasonable for a viewer to associate Batra with Patel” and that, even though Patel's case-rigging appears, if anything, to be modeled on the alleged wrongdoing of Simonovsky,

there is a reasonable likelihood that the ordinary viewer, unacquainted with Batra personally, could understand Patel's corruption to be the truth about Batra.

“While First Amendment considerations are substantial, the unique facts of this case render it sui generis,” she concluded.

A libel-in-fiction case in New York had not survived a motion to dismiss since 1983, when the state's high court rejected a claim against an author whose ex-girlfriend sued him for portraying her as a prostitute. Springer v. Viking Press, 458 N.E.2d 1256.

Under Springer, “the description of the fictional character must be so closely akin to the real person claiming to be defamed that a reader of the book, knowing the real person, would have no difficulty linking the two.” A more recent case requires that

the identity of the real and fictional personae must be so complete that the defamatory material become a plausible aspect of the real life of the plaintiff.

Batra told the New York Times he felt vindicated by Shafer's decision. “This is a landmark case, because the impartiality and independence of the judiciary is critical to society, and 'Law & Order,’ a reality show, recklessly undermined public confidence in the rule of law and the noble judiciary,” he said.

Of course, “Law & Order” is not a reality show. And Shafer stretched Springer beyond any rational limits by ruling, in effect, that the ordinary viewer would know enough about the judicial corruption scandal to identify Batra with Patel -– but not enough about him to know he didn't really pay off a judge.

By Matthew Heller
3/25/08