| Court: | New York Court of Appeals |
| Litigants: | Lunney v. Prodigy Services Co. |
| Decidedate: | December 2 |
| Decideyear: | 1999 |
| Fullname: | Alexander G. Lunney v. Prodigy Services Company, et al. |
| Citations: | 723 N.E.2d 539; 94 N.Y.2d 242; 701 N.Y.S.2d 684 |
| Prior: | Defendant's motion for summary judgment denied, Sup. Ct. Westchester Cty., July 2, 1997; renewed motion for summary judgment denied, Sup. Ct., Jan. 14, 1998; rev'd, 250 A.D.2d 230 (1999) |
| Subsequent: | Cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1098 (2000) |
| Holding: | An internet chatroom provider could not be considered the publisher of defamatory material posted by an imposter account because of its passive role in monitoring the chatrooms. Appellate Division affirmed. |
| Chiefjudge: | Judith S. Kaye |
| Associatejudges: | Joseph W. Bellacosa, George Bundy Smith, Howard A. Levine, Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Richard C. Wesley, Albert M. Rosenblatt |
| Majority: | Rosenblatt |
| Joinmajority: | Kaye, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley |
| Notparticipating: | Bellacosa |
Lunney v. Prodigy Services Co., 94 N.Y.2d 242 (1999) is a leading U.S. law case on liability of internet service providers for defamation. The court held that Prodigy, an internet chatroom provider, was not considered a publisher of defamatory material posted from an imposter account due to its passive role in monitoring the chatrooms.