1. What is the most “jealously” protected kind of speech, according to the court in this case? (3 points)
Free Speech 2. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points)
Supreme Court 3. Briefly – state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points)
A radio show decided to have an Ugliest Bride contest and used the bridal photographs that were published in the newspaper. The winner of the contest was an employee of a competing radio station and the very derogatory comments about the plaintiff and her appearance were made on the radio show. The plaintiffs name and personal information was broadcast on the show and callers were allowed to comment on her. The plaintiff tried to sue the radio station for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation of character. 4. According to the case, why was this not defamation, and what tort did the court approve a filing for? (5 points)
The court decided that this was not defamation because it was the broadcaster opinion. The court approved filing for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 5. In the decision, why does the court state further proceedings will be required? (5 points)
The court confirmed that the plaintiff can pursue a lawsuit. 6. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? (5 points)
Yes, I agree with the decision made in this case. The plaintiff name and other personal information was released to the public and they showed an intention to degrade her. She was negatively impacted by the comments that were made of her. Broadcasters have freedom of speech and a right to express their opinion. However there are exceptions to the rule.
Now, in the library, click the “Shepardize” button in the top right of the LexisNexis page while on the case. This provides you with all of the cases which have used the Esposito case as “precedent” since its publication. Out of the 30 cases listed pick one, click the link, read the case, and provide the following information A. the name and citation of the case (5 points)
B-S Industrial Contractors, Inc., Respondent, v. Burns Brothers Contractors, Inc., et al., Appellants.
82349

256 D.2d 963; 681 N.Y.S.2d 897; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13888 B. the name of the court which decided the case (3 points)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT C. the year of the decision (2 points) December 24, 1998, Decided D. the facts of the case (5 points)
Defendants, materials supplier and former employees of plaintiff construction company, appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, St. Lawrence County (New York), which held plaintiff's complaint sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff alleged defendants took certain confidential files from plaintiff and told plaintiff's customers that due to a mass exodus of employees, plaintiff could not provide supervision or expertise.
Plaintiff construction company filed suit against defendants, materials supplier and former employees of plaintiff, for damages and injunctive relief on the grounds that defendants conspired to interfere with plaintiff's contract, misappropriated confidential information, and tortiously interfered with prospective business relations. The trial court held and the court affirmed that the complaint could survive a motion pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3211(a). The court held the complaint's allegations that defendants told plaintiff's customers that a mass exodus of employees meant that plaintiff could no longer supply competent supervision of workers or its prior level of expertise, that defendants took certain confidential files from plaintiff, which were used to make successful bids to one of plaintiff's customers, and that defendants' wrongful conduct caused plaintiff to fail to receive that customer's projects, were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. E. the issue of the case (5 points)
The instant action sought damages and injunctive relief by alleging, inter alia, that defendants had maliciously conspired to interfere with plaintiff's contracts and had misappropriated confidential information. Supreme Court granted a temporary restraining order preventing defendants from engaging in certain competitive acts and further granted plaintiff's motion for an order of seizure to retrieve the files taken by Anderson. After the Sheriff recovered and inventoried the aforementioned files, the court vacated the restraining order and denied further injunctive relief. In the early stages of discovery, plaintiff moved to amend its complaint to add a fourth cause of action alleging tortious interference with prospective business relations. [Burns cross-moved to dismiss the original cause of action for failure to state a claim to the extent that it could be construed as alleging the same cause of action proposed in the amendment. Supreme Court granted plaintiff leave to amend and denied Burns' motion to dismiss.
The sole issue before us is whether the complaint, as originally proposed or amended, can survive a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) where such pleading must be afforded a liberal construction, the facts as alleged must be accepted as true and all possible inferences deferred to plaintiff F. the “decision” of the case (5 points)
The court affirmed the trial court's holding that plaintiff construction company's complaint sufficiently alleged claims upon which relief could be granted given the allegations that defendants, materials supplier and former employees of plaintiff, took confidential files and informed plaintiff's customers that plaintiff could not provide sufficient supervision or expertise.

G. for what principle of law was the Esposito case used (cited for) in the case? (5 points)
In this narrow context, we must consider whether there are sufficient allegations that " 'defendants engaged in the use of wrongful or unlawful means to secure a competitive advantage over plaintiff ..., or that defendants acted for the sole purpose of inflicting intentional harm on plaintiff