More

Jerry Seinfeld Free To Mock Wife's Rival Cookbook Author On TV, Judge Rules

DAVID B. CARUSO   02/25/11 04:58 PM ET   AP

NEW YORK — A judge has thrown out a lawsuit by a cookbook author who accused Jerry Seinfeld of hurting her reputation by mocking her on national television.

In a ruling filed with the court Friday, state Justice Marcy Friedman said it was clear the comedian was joking when he called author Missy Chase Lapine a "wacko" during an appearance on the "Late Show with David Letterman" in 2007.

The judge said Seinfeld also has a constitutional right to express his opinion.

The suit stemmed from a legal battle in which Lapine accused Seinfeld's wife, Jessica, of stealing her idea for a book on how to get children to eat healthy. Both women had published their books that year. Lapine's was called, "The Sneaky Chef: Simple Strategies for Hiding Healthy Foods in Kids' Favorite Meals." Jessica Seinfeld's was titled "Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets to Get Your Kids Eating Good Food."

The case became tabloid fodder, and Seinfeld addressed it on Letterman with a heaping of ridicule.

"One of the fun facts of celebrity life is wackos will wait in the woodwork to pop out at certain moments of your life to inject a little adrenaline into your life experience," Seinfeld told Letterman.

"So there's another woman who had another cookbook," he continued. "My wife never saw the book, read the book, used the book ... But the books came out at the same time. So this woman says, 'I sense this could be my wacko moment.'"

Seinfeld said Lapine was accusing his wife of "vegetable plagiarism."

"She comes out and says, 'You stole my mushed-up carrots. You can't put mushed-up carrots in a casserole. I put mushed-up carrots in the casserole.'"

A federal court eventually agreed with Seinfeld that the copyright suit was baseless and tossed it out last year. The judges said there was nothing original about the idea of "stockpiling vegetable purees for covert use in children's food."

Friedman's ruling, signed Wednesday but filed Friday, noted that you can't sue someone for libel in the U.S. merely for hurling an insult. You must show that a person lied about facts in order to damage a person's reputation and did so in such a way that a reasonable person would have believed that those false statements were true.

Given all of the hyperbole in his jokes – one of which implied that people who went by three names, like Lapin, were predisposed to become assassins – the judge said she found it "inconceivable" that a reasonable viewer thought he was serious about fearing for his safety. And as for Seinfeld's suggestion that Lapine was an opportunist making up baseless plagiarism claims, the judge wrote that he was entitled to voice his opinion.

"If the law were to the contrary, the protection of the First Amendment would be unacceptably denied to persons who publicly defend themselves against what they believe to be baseless charges or lawsuits," she wrote.

The judge also absolved "Deceptively Delicious" publisher HarperCollins of any wrongdoing. Lapine had accused the company of lifting ideas from a book proposal she sent the company in 2006.

Lapine's lawyer, Howard Miller, said he and his client were evaluating the opinion and would decide later whether to appeal. He had no other comment.

Seinfeld's attorney, Orin Snyder, called the decision "a complete victory for Jerry, and also a victory for the First Amendment and the right of comedians to tell jokes."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST FOOD

NEW YORK — A judge has thrown out a lawsuit by a cookbook author who accused Jerry Seinfeld of hurting her reputation by mocking her on national television. In a ruling filed with the court Fri...
NEW YORK — A judge has thrown out a lawsuit by a cookbook author who accused Jerry Seinfeld of hurting her reputation by mocking her on national television. In a ruling filed with the court Fri...
Filed by Molly Stern  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 52
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:41 PM on 03/28/2011
I think the outcry of support for her comes more out of people viewing Seinfeld as the big, evil, rich giant more than they care about her baseless case.
What if: I like performing dangerous stunts in real life. I hurt myself on camera. I think it would make a great movie so I send the idea to movie houses in LA. My movie gets picked up but someone else also comes out with a movie at the same time that resembles mine. Who should I sue? Johnny Knoxville? The producer? Or maybe I should sue the 3 stooges. Even though I wasn't born when that show was produced, they may have visited the future and stole my ideas and took them back in time. Sound stupid right? This woman is a wacko if she thinks she can sue someone for having the same idea she had, that many people probably had for YEARS. This ain't the ipod we are talking about. My mother used to sneak healthy food in our meals, should we hop on the class action suit also? If you care about your idea that much and don't want it to get lifted by another publisher, don't send it out. Let's just say they did steal it, it's extremely difficult to prove, because it isn't an idea that SHE started. Lastly, who sues a comedians wife and expects not to get ridiculed? Wackos.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:53 PM on 03/08/2011
What do Jessica S. and Sarah Palin have in common?

Their publisher HarperCollins - owned by Fox's Rupert Murdoch.

What do Jerry S. and Elisabeth Hasselbeck have in common?

They both hired attorney Orin Snyder to defend them against plagiarism charges.

Why do I mention this? Because justice ain't free.
07:31 PM on 03/07/2011
With the law giving Seinfeld the green light, there's only good taste to overcome now.
photo
supergranny
doing hard time in central florida
08:15 AM on 03/03/2011
Any way you slice it, dice it, or mash it, Seinfeld might want to curb his enthusiasm on this "victory". It's very hard to feel sorry for someone like Seinfeld regardless of the hassles of being sued. Just enjoy your Porsche collection and your identical twin wife.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
xstevejx
04:55 PM on 03/03/2011
His enthusiasm for winning against a baseless lawsuit? Anyone whoever thought he was seriously demeaning the woman should have their head examined.
photo
supergranny
doing hard time in central florida
07:01 PM on 03/03/2011
are you a paid goon for JS? you're getting kinda weird defending someone who needs no defending.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
goodmarina
Most People use Religion to justify their bias!
12:51 AM on 03/03/2011
I thought Mr. Seinfeld had more gravitas in his own right that he did not need to pick a fight with his wife's professional rival.

Goes to show ....
photo
GraphicMatt
Somebody make me a sandwich!
02:00 PM on 03/04/2011
Picking a fight? He made one comment about her 4 years ago and got sued over it. He won.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:56 PM on 03/08/2011
Oh no - he made SEVERAL comments on many stages - including Oprah.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:20 AM on 03/02/2011
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You wouldn't care then that you just became quite low in my esteem.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
VOTER
Freedom from fear - the philosophy of human rights
12:27 PM on 03/02/2011
X2 - Big Time!

Wasn't there a public scandal about how Jerry and his wife became a couple?
If so, I can't imagine he would appreciate any jokes regarding any reference
to them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:37 PM on 03/02/2011
Yes there was! Maybe someone else can remember the details, but it was something to do with her being ready to marry another man when Seinfeld came along and "swept her off her feet."
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
09:52 AM on 03/02/2011
Let's go through the libel checklist shall we?

Defamatory? Possibly.
True? Yes.

So.... no soup for you, ms plaintiff
03:45 AM on 03/02/2011
Jerry may have won this case in court, but he has become a very small man in my eyes. This woman did not have a chance fighting his millions. I will never buy his wife's book.
Now we have to hear him gloat. The fact is that this woman lost her book rights and endured attacks on her reputation. Shame on you Judge Friedman.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
xstevejx
07:20 AM on 03/02/2011
Don't forget the OTHER judges who also said she had no case!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
raker
10:14 PM on 03/02/2011
Even if it was a legitimate legal decision (although I'm not convinced), it is very small of him to go on TV and deride her. Even if she were a colossal jerk, I think it is highly unethical for Seinfeld to go on TV and mock her.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nicole Dixson
11:01 PM on 03/01/2011
You guys won. Why rub salt in this woman's wounds?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
xstevejx
08:07 AM on 03/02/2011
Because she asked for it, perhaps? She may have had a case against the publisher originally, but when that wasn't going well and she expanded it to accuse Mrs. Seinfeld of "brazen plagiarism" w/ little proof, she (or her overzealous lawyer) invited return personal attacks. If you actually read all the court opinions (which I've bothered to do), some of the judges' comments are even on the verge of admonishing her lawyer for some of the accusations.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nicole Dixson
09:22 AM on 03/02/2011
Since when do we have to act as stupid as a person acts towards us? Guess you've never heard of being the bigger person.
SirCoolBreeze
GOP'ers = Alleged Unindicted Co-conspirators
10:38 PM on 03/01/2011
Why did Jerry stupidly bother to do this? Whatever she made on the book he spent on the lawyers to defend himself, to the tune of $500,000-$1,000,000. She couldn't have made any more than that.
Jerry Stupidfeld?
09:50 PM on 03/01/2011
I knew her before she married Jerry, not shocking, she was dying to be a star @(*#er.
photo
butchcliff
The future is unwritten
06:38 PM on 03/01/2011
Must have been running out of material for Letterman show. 'What's up with That'
photo
rich3324
Likes: Chasing villagers. Dislikes: Fire
04:29 PM on 03/01/2011
The judge maybe right, but it just seems like a little person getting crushed by a rich one, who really does not need the money or fame.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
xstevejx
06:05 PM on 03/01/2011
...or an opportunistic "little person" looking for some quick $$$ by filing a frivolous lawsuit! I don't know her intentions...she may have actually thought she was wronged, which I could only take her word for. However, even thinking you are wronged when you weren't doesn't make you at all right.
SirCoolBreeze
GOP'ers = Alleged Unindicted Co-conspirators
10:34 PM on 03/01/2011
Dude, you can't seem to fathom that a multi-billion dollar publishing house would do something like hear an idea pitched by a nobody, politely say "no thank you", then the literary "agent" of the publisher speaking about the idea to someone else at a cocktail party, you know, to like try and impress Jerry Seinfeld's wife? Plant the book bug in her ear? You don't know if the other author was wronged of not, you just willy-nilly apologize for Jerry. Jerry brought this on himself. What business is it of his, really? He protests way too much over virtually nothing. A sledgehammer for a gnat? Sounds guilty to those not on his payroll or infatuated with Jerry. As you are.

Leave everyone else alone on this, your naiveté is becoming ugly.
SirCoolBreeze
GOP'ers = Alleged Unindicted Co-conspirators
04:13 PM on 03/01/2011
" HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
xstevejx 15 minutes ago (3:55 PM)
62 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
You're "just saying" you know the absolute truth? "

And out come the Jerry serial apologists...
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
xstevejx
05:59 PM on 03/01/2011
Apologizing for nothing??? Yeah, that makes sense! ;-)
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
xstevejx
03:57 PM on 03/01/2011
...and out come the Jerry haters...unsurprisingly!