Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------- X
ANTHONY ZAPPIN,
Plaintiff,
- against Case No. 16-cv-8838

NYP HOLDINGS, INC.

d/b/a THE NEW YORK POST,

COMPLAINT

JULIA MARSH,

Jury Trial Demanded

MATTHEW F. COOPER,
a Justice of the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, in his
individual and personal capacity,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------- X

Plaintiff Anthony Zappin (Plaintiff) hereby alleges the following against Defendants
NYP Holdings, Inc. d/b/a The New York Post (New York Post), Julia Marsh (Marsh) and
Justice Matthew F. Cooper (Justice Cooper) (collectively, Defendants):
NATURE OF THE CASE
1.

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for defamation/injurious falsehood.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh published false and defamatory statements concerning
Plaintiff in The New York Post tabloid on November 13, 2015, which resulted in harm to Plaintiff.
Justice Cooper orchestrated, instigated and participated in the scheme to publish false and
defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff on the first day of a thirteen (13) day confidential
custody and access trial in the matter Anthony Zappin v. Claire Comfort, Index No. 301568/14
(N.Y. Cnty. Sup. Ct.) (Zappin v. Comfort). In doing so, Justice Coopers extrajudicial acts of
soliciting negative and false publicity concerning Plaintiff at the outset of trial denied him a full

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 30

and fair custody and access trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983
against Justice Cooper for committing acts, under color of law, with the intent and purpose of
depriving Plaintiff of his rights secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Plaintiff brings this action against Justice Cooper in his personal and individual capacity. It bears
noting that, as of the filing of this Complaint, Justice Cooper is under investigation by the New
York State Commission on Judicial Conduct for his actions alleged herein as well as other acts of
judicial misconduct in Zappin v. Comfort. Plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages as well as
injunctive relief.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) because the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. The Court also has
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331.
3.

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(b)(1) and (b)(2) because the events

that gave rise to this action occurred in this Judicial District.

THE PARTIES
4.

Plaintiff Anthony Zappin is a resident of the State of West Virginia with an address

of 1827 Washington Blvd., Huntington, WV 25701. He is the Plaintiff in the matrimonial action
Anthony Zappin v. Claire Comfort, Index No. 301568/14 pending before the New York County
Supreme Court.
5.

Upon information and belief, Defendant New York Post is a corporation organized

under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 1211 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10036. Defendant New York Post owns and publishes The New York
2

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 3 of 30

Post, a daily tabloid newspapers published in New York City. At all relevant times, Defendant
New York Post did business as The New York Post, owned and operated The New York Post and
all of its corresponding webpages and websites, including http://www.nypost.com.
6.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Julia Marsh is a resident of the State of

New York with an address of 415 Argyle Road, Apt. 3J, Brooklyn, NY 11218. Furthermore, upon
information and belief, she is employed as a reporter at The New York Post by Defendant New
York Post.
7.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Justice Cooper is a resident of the State of

New York. He is a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court of New York County, IAS Part 51, which
exclusively hears matrimonial cases. Since July 2015, Defendant Justice Cooper has been the
presiding judge in the matter Anthony Zappin v. Claire Comfort, Index No. 301568/14 pending
before the New York County Supreme Court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Justice Coopers Unlawful Assignment to Zappin v. Comfort
8.

Plaintiff initiated divorce action Zappin v. Comfort in February 2014 after

Plaintiffs ex-wife Claire Comfort (Ms. Comfort) abducted the parties four (4) week old child
from their home in Washington, DC to Tacoma, WA. In retaliation, Ms. Comfort asserted false
allegations of family offenses to justify her unlawful abduction of the child. Nonetheless, the
matter primarily concerned custody and access of Plaintiffs infant child. The prior presiding judge
of Zappin v. Comfort, Justice Deborah Kaplan, came under intense scrutiny after unlawfully
ordering Plaintiff to have supervised access with the child for well-over fourteen (14) months
without providing Plaintiff a hearing on the issue.

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 4 of 30

9.

On April 24, 2015, Justice Kaplan directed an unprovoked assault on Plaintiff in

her courtroom and adjacent hallway by her assigned court officer. As a result of the attack,
Plaintiff suffered extensive bruising to his arms, legs and ribs. (See Ex. 1, Court of Claim
Complaint in Zappin v. State of New York.) Notably, this was not the first time Justice Kaplan had
been accused of directing an assault on a litigant and/or attorney in her courtroom. (See Ex. 2,
Discovery Responses at 9.) Plaintiff filed a complaint against Justice Kaplan in the New York
Court of Claims, which was served on the New York Attorney General on May 7, 2015. (See Ex.
1.)

Justice Kaplan was reassigned to an administrative position less than two (2) weeks later,

stripped of ninety percent (90%) of her docket and barred from being assigned any new cases.
10.

After Justice Kaplan was effectively removed from the bench in May 2015, Zappin

v. Comfort was transferred to Justice Cooper on May 22, 2015 under highly irregular
circumstances. It was one of the first, if not the first, cases transferred from Justice Kaplans
docket. (See Ex. 3, Spreadsheet of Justice Kaplans Reassigned Cases.) Out of over 150 cases
transferred from Justice Kaplans docket, Zappin v. Comfort was the only case transferred to
Justice Cooper. Moreover, the reassignment was in violation of 22 NYCRR 202.3 providing for
the assignment of civil cases to judges in New York Supreme Court. Neither the state court, nor
the New York Office of Court Administration would provide a meaningful explanation as to why
or how Zappin v. Comfort was chosen to be transferred to Justice Cooper rather than Justice Frank
Nervo, who was assigned virtually all of Justice Kaplans reassigned cases. (See Ex. 3.)
Justice Coopers Retaliation against Plaintiff
11.

The explanation for the unlawful assignment of Zappin v. Comfort to Justice

Cooper became instantly clear after Plaintiff first appeared before him on July 22, 2015. Indeed,
Justice Cooper was assigned in retaliation as result of Justice Kaplans effective removal from the
4

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 5 of 30

bench. It was apparent that Justice Cooper intended to engage in an all-out war to publicly
discredit, humiliate and destroy Plaintiffs reputation, credibility and livelihood as a result of
Plaintiffs complaint against Justice Kaplan. For instance, at the initial July 22, 2015 hearing
before Justice Cooper, he personally attacked Plaintiff and baselessly impugned his character,
going so far as to threaten to file disciplinary charges against Plaintiff without Plaintiff speaking
so much as a word in his courtroom.
12.

Justice Cooper and Justice Kaplans professional careers and personal lives have

been tethered for decades. Both presided in the Civil Court of New York City and the Criminal
Court of New York City during overlapping periods between 2001 and 2010. They were both
subsequently appointed Acting Justice of the New York County Supreme Court in 2007. Justice
Cooper and Justice Kaplan were elected (unopposed) to the New York County Supreme Court in
2011 and 2012, respectively. And, both ended up in two (2) of the four (4) matrimonial parts in
the New York County Supreme Court upon election. Most disturbing, prior to becoming judicial
officers, both share links to the same organized crime faction, the Lucchese Crime Family. Justice
Cooper was Chief Legal Counsel to the Teamsters 237, an organization controlled by the Lucchese
Crime Family.1 Justice Kaplan, known as the Mafia Princess, had close family connections to
the organization.2 Thus, Justice Coopers defense of Justice Kaplan is of no surprise.
13.

The unlawful plan to defame and discredit Plaintiff reached one of many peaks on

September 18, 2015 when Justice Cooper engaged in the extrajudicial conduct of publishing and

See New York Law Journal Profile of Justice Matthew Cooper, available at
http://judges.newyorklawjournal.com/profile/Supreme_Court,_New_York_County,_Civil/Matthew_Coop
er/Matthew_Cooper-937.xml; see also Lucchese Crime Family Wiki page, available at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucchese_crime_family.
2

See The Mafia Princess Who Became A NYC Judge, The New York Post, May 22, 2005,
available at http://nypost.com/2005/05/22/the-mafia-princess-who-became-a-nyc-judge/

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 6 of 30

disseminating a statutorily sealed decision in Zappin v. Comfort (the Sanctions Decision). In

the Sanctions Decision, Justice Cooper unlawfully imposed a $10,000 on Plaintiff. Even worse,
the Sanctions Decision contained numerous false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff,
which Plaintiff had no notice or opportunity to defend. In order to generate publicity, Justice
Cooper sent the statutorily sealed Sanctions Decision to several news outlets, including Defendant
Marsh a reporter at The New York Post, who published stories both in the print and online versions
of the tabloid containing false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff. Plaintiff was terminated
from his job as an attorney and his career was ruined as a result of the Sanctions Decision and the
publicity surrounding it. The legality of Justice Coopers extrajudicial actions with respect to the
Sanctions Decision is being litigated in the action Anthony Zappin v. Matthew F. Cooper, Case
No. 16:cv-5985 (S.D.N.Y). Likewise, Plaintiff has brought an action against the Defendant New
York Post in New York Supreme Court, Anthony Zappin v. NY Post Holdings, Inc. et al., Index
No. 162911/16, for its collusion with Justice Cooper in defaming Plaintiff in connection with the
Sanctions Decision.
14.

It bears noting that The New York Post (as well as The New York Daily News) is

one of Justice Coopers go-to outlets for shaming and denigrating litigants. Justice Cooper
regularly acts as a confidential informant feeding salacious information to Defendants New York
Post and marsh concerning gossip-worthy and celebrity divorce matters. Indeed, Defendant and
his confidential divorce proceedings have appeared in the headlines of The New York Post dozens
upon dozens of times and orders of magnitude more than any other judge in Manhattan. A partial,
yet lengthy, list of Justice Coopers forays into The New York Post is enclosed herewith as Exhibit
4. Needless to say, a judge acting as an informant to the tabloid media, particularly in confidential

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 7 of 30

divorce and custody proceedings, is not only extrajudicial conduct, but is appalling and calls into
question his fitness to sit on the bench.
GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD
15.

Defendants cannot avail themselves to the Fair Report Privilege. New York Civil

Rights Law 74 typically shields the author from liability for the publication of a fair and true
report of any judicial proceeding . Even if one were to assume arguendo that Defendants New
York Post and Marshs false statements contained their November 13, 2015 published articles
concerning Zappin v. Comfort were a true and accurate report of the proceedings (which they
were not as discussed more fully below), the privilege is not applicable in matrimonial cases.
Specifically, the New York Court of Appeals has carved out an exception to the Fair Report
Privilege. It has held that:
In most types of proceedings the advantage in having judicial proceedings public
more than counterbalances the inconveniences to the private person whose conduct
may be the subject of such proceedings. On the other hand, however, the
Legislature has, at least since 1847, made it plain that in matrimonial action the
balance of convenience is in favor of the individual and that in the case of papers
filed in such actions the public interest is served not by publicizing them but by
sealing them and prohibiting their examination by the public.
Since, then, such matrimonial actions were and are not proceedings which the
public had the right to hear or see, it follows and it has been consistently held
that the privilege generally according to report of judicial proceedings is
unavailable to reports of matrimonial actions It is apparent, therefore, that the
privilege created by section 74 of the Civil Rights Law does not attach to the
publication of a report of matrimonial proceedings.
Shiles v. News Syndicate Co., 7 N.Y.2d 9, 14-15 (N.Y. 1970) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted) (emphasis added).
16.

Even if the Fair Report Privilege was available in matrimonial cases, Defendants

cannot avail themselves to the privilege because their reporting of Zappin v. Comfort was not a
fair or accurate report of the proceedings. [C]ourts have establishing the meaning of a fair and
7

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 8 of 30

true report as a substantially accurate report. Benedict v. Tarnow & Juvelier, LLP, 013 N.Y.
Misc. LEXIS 6347, at *6 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Dec. 24, 2013). Section 611 of the Restatement
(Second) of Torts provides that a report is privileged if it is accurate and complete or a fair
abridgment of the occurrence reported. Comment f explains:
Not only must the report be accurate, but it must be fair. Even a report that is
accurate so far as it goes may be so edited and deleted as to misrepresent the
proceeding and thus be misleading. Thus, although it is unnecessary that the report
be exhaustive and complete, it is necessary that nothing be omitted or misplaced in
such a manner as to convey an erroneous impression to those who hear or read it,
as for example a report of the discreditable testimony in a judicial proceeding and
a failure to publish the exculpatory evidence, or the use of a defamatory headline
in a newspaper report, qualification of which is found only in the text of the article.
The reporter is not privileged under this Section to make additions of his own that
would convey a defamatory impression, nor to impute corrupt motives to any one,
nor to indict expressly or by innuendo the veracity or integrity of any of the parties.
(emphasis added.) Thus, [t]he absolute privilege according statements made in the course of a
judicial proceeding may be lost if the privilege is abused. Thomas v. G2 FMV, LLC, 2016 N.Y.
Misc. 272, at *23 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Jan. 27, 2016); see also Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 23 N.Y. 3d
713, 718 (2015); Halperin v. Salvan, 117 A.D.3d 544, 548 (1st Dept. 1986). The test is whether
the statements are material and pertinent to the proceeding, or whether they are so needlessly
inflammatory that malice can be inferred. See Thomas, 2016 N.Y. Misc. 272 at *23. As shown
herein, Defendants New York Post and Marsh engaged in a one-sided smear campaign of
inflammatory statements against Plaintiff instigated and orchestrated by Justice Cooper that was
not a fair portrayal of the proceedings in Zappin v. Comfort.
PERTINENT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
17.

The custody and access trial in Zappin v. Comfort began on November 12, 2015.

The trial began with Justice Cooper ordered that the court-appointed forensic custody evaluator,
Dr. Alan Ravitz (Dr. Ravitz), be called to testify first over Plaintiffs objection. It was apparent
8

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 9 of 30

that Justice Cooper viewed the first day of trial on November 12, 2015 as a chance to set the tone
against Plaintiff and to further publicly defame and discredit Plaintiff by, in effect, leaking sealed
evidence and testimony to the tabloid media. Indeed, prior to trial on November 12, 2015 Justice
Cooper tipped off Defendant Marsh at The New York Post (and Barbara Ross at The Daily News)
that the trial in Zappin v. Comfort was to begin November 12, 2015 with the calling of the forensic
custody evaluator, Dr. Ravitz, whom the parties shared salacious details concerning their marriage
and who wrote an unfavorable report concerning Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, Justice
Coopers chambers called and e-mailed Defendant Marsh prior to the start of trial to inform her of
Dr. Ravitzs testimony as well as its substance.3 Justice Cooper no doubt engaged in this
extrajudicial conduct to collude with the Defendants New York Post and Marsh to publicly defame
Plaintiff by tipping off and contacting them concerning Dr. Ravitzs expected scandalous
testimony about Plaintiff.
18.

Justice Coopers alerting Defendant Marsh of Dr. Ravitzs testimony was

horrifyingly egregious demonstrating a lack of concern for the confidentiality of the parties and,
most importantly, the child. In custody cases, neutral forensic custody evaluators are usually
appointed by the court. Since the parties typically share intimate details concerning their marriage
and the care of their children with these evaluators, great care is taken to preserve the
confidentiality of the forensic custody evaluators reports and testimony. This is all the more the
case where the forensic custody evaluator attempts to perform medical diagnosis of the parties
mental health and has access to their medical records.
3

Accordingly, the forensic custody

Plaintiff is in possession of e-mail communications from Justice Coopers law clerk, Timothy
Corbo, to both Julia Marsh and Barbara Ross alerting them to the timing Dr. Ravitzs testimony. Plaintiff
will provide them during discovery to the extent that discovery from Defendants Justice Cooper, New York
Post and Marsh reveals that the communications were destroyed by them, which appears to be the case in
the other actions pending.

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 10 of 30

evaluators report is typically sealed and not permitted outside the courtroom. Moreover, more
often than not, the testimony of the forensic custody evaluator takes place in a closed courtroom.
19.

In this case, Justice Cooper tipped off Defendant Marsh as to Dr. Ravitzs report

and testimony as a weapon to further defame, discredit and harm Plaintiff. Much, if not all, of Dr.
Ravitzs report contained false allegations by Ms. Comfort to which she was unable to provide
corroborating evidence at trial. Yet, Dr. Ravitz was permitted to testify as to these unsubstantiated
allegations in full view of the press solicited to the courtroom by Justice Cooper.

These

unsubstantiated allegations were in turn further perverted and twisted by Defendant Marsh and
published by Defendant New York Post on November 13, 2015. As set forth more fully below,
the November 13, 2015 statements published by Defendants New York Post and Marsh to which
Justice Cooper instigated and orchestrated defamed Plaintiff and caused him immense harm.
Defendants Defamatory Statements in the November 13, 2015 Articles
20.

On November 13, 2015, Defendant New York Post published an article on its

website entitled Hostile Mega-Lawyer Accused of Abusing Pregnant Wife written by

Defendant Marsh. (Ex. 5.) A substantially similar version of the article was published in The New
York Post print edition on November 13, 2015. The articles contained false statements concerning
Plaintiff and did not provide a true or accurate report of the November 12, 2015 trial in Zappin v.
Comfort. Upon information and belief, the articles were viewed by thousands of people both in
print and on The New York Post website at http://www.nypost.com.
21.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh wrote that Plaintiff was hostile and

aggressively hostile. (Id.) The statement is a statement of fact and is categorically false and
defamatory.

10

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 11 of 30

22.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh repeated Ms. Comforts allegations claiming

that Plaintiff abus[ed] [his] pregnant wife. The statement that Plaintiff abus[d] [his] pregnant
wife is a statement of fact and is categorically false and defamatory. Defendants New York Post
and Marshs reporting was not a fair and accurate report as set forth more fully below in Paragraph
28.
23.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh sensationalized Ms. Comforts allegations

writing that Plaintiff was a monster at home. (Id.) The statement is a statement of fact and is
categorically false and defamatory. Defendants New York Post and Marshs reporting was not a
fair and accurate report as set forth more fully below in Paragraph 28.
24.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh repeated Ms. Comforts false allegation

claiming that Plaintiff beat his pregnant wife . (Id.) The statement is a statement of fact and
is categorically false and defamatory. Defendants New York Post and Marshs reporting was not
a fair and accurate report as set forth more fully below in Paragraph 28.
25.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh repeated Ms. Comfort unsubstantiated claim

made to Dr. Ravitz that Plaintiff planned to break a neighbors window to steal cable and Internet
for his home . (Id.) The statement is a statement of fact and is categorically false and
defamatory. Furthermore, Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report the following
pertinent facts in connection with the above-referenced statement:

Ms. Comfort provided no evidence at trial to corroborate her allegation.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report this fact.

Ms. Comfort made the allegation to Dr. Ravitz some fourteen (14) months prior
without providing any corroborating evidence. Defendants New York Post and
Marsh failed to report this fact.
11

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 12 of 30

Dr. Ravitz did not find Ms. Comforts allegation credible. Defendants New
York Post and Marsh failed to report this fact.

Plaintiff denied Ms. Comforts allegation. Defendants New York Post and
Marsh failed to report this fact.

Plaintiff provided evidence at trial and text messages to Dr. Ravitz that Ms.
Comfort attempted to break the neighbors window (who were out of town) to
gain access to a shared cable box so that Comcast could hook up cable and
Internet in the parties condominium. Defendants New York Post and Marsh
failed to report this fact.

Accordingly, Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to provide a true and accurate report of
the proceeding with respect to the above-referenced defamatory statement.
26.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh repeated Ms. Comforts unsubstantiated

claim made to Dr. Ravitz that Plaintiff schemed to create a fake Ashley Madison Account to take
revenge on an ex-boss and that he tried to create an account on the spouse-cheating site, Ashley
Madison, in his old boss name . (Id.) The statements are statements of fact and are
categorically false and defamatory. Furthermore, Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to
report the following pertinent facts in connection with the above-referenced statement:

Ms. Comfort provided no evidence at trial to corroborate her allegation.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report this fact.

Ms. Comfort made the allegation to Dr. Ravitz some fourteen (14) months prior
without providing any corroborating evidence. Defendants New York Post and
Marsh failed to report this fact.

12

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 13 of 30

Dr. Ravitz did not find Ms. Comforts allegation credible. Defendants New
York Post and Marsh failed to report this fact.

Plaintiff denied Ms. Comforts allegation. Defendants New York Post and
Marsh failed to report this fact.

Plaintiff provided uncontroverted evidence at trial and to Dr. Ravitz in the form
of testimony, text messages and e-mails that Ms. Comfort was a notorious
Internet troll who engaged in a smear campaign of Plaintiffs prior firm Quinn
Emmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. In 2012, Ms. Comfort was terminated
from her job as an attorney at Winston & Strawn LLP and was subsequently
unemployed for over six (6) months. Ms. Comfort sought a job at Quinn
Emmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, but was declined an offer by partner
Edward DeFranco. Ms. Comfort subsequently obtained an offer from Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP from a partner at the firm and professor at Columbia
University Law School whom she had a sexual relationship while attending law
school. However, Ms. Comfort needed a conflict waiver from Google, Inc.,
which she requested from Mr. DeFranco who represented Google. When Mr.
DeFranco refused to obtain the conflict waiver for her, Ms. Comfort began
trolling the Internet as the QuinnPumo on Above The Law, AutoAdmit.com
and other sites making defamatory statements concerning Quinn Emmanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and its intellectual property practice. Evidence at
trial demonstrated this. Plaintiff also introduced evidence at trial and to Dr.
Ravitz that Ms. Comfort posted on various Internet websites under various
monikers such as Tommy Turdskin, To be fair, Partner Emeritus and
13

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 14 of 30

Non-Jew Wearing a Yamaka to Cover Baldspot, and N*gger N*gger

Chicken Dinner, to name a few, making insensitive and defamatory posts.
Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report these facts.
Accordingly, Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to provide a true and accurate report of
the proceeding with respect to the above-referenced defamatory statement.
27.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh wrote that Plaintiff worked for mega-firm

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan before being fired, according to the testimony and that
Plaintiff was fired from Quinn Emanuel in 2013. (Id.) The statement that Plaintiff was fired is
a statement of fact and is categorically false and defamatory. Plaintiff was not fired from the firm.
Defendant Marsh wholly fabricated the assertion as there was no testimony adduced from Dr.
Ravitz, Ms. Comfort or any other witness that Plaintiff was fired from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan LLP. The only testimony was that Plaintiff left the firm, which was true after Plaintiff
received a more lucrative offer at Latham & Watkins LLP. Indeed, the only reference to anyone
being fired in the transcript concerned Ms. Comfort being fired from Winston & Strawn LLP.
Accordingly, Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to provide a true and accurate report of
the proceeding with respect to the above-referenced defamatory statement.
28.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh repeated Ms. Comforts unsubstantiated

claim verbatim from sealed testimony that Plaintiff abused Ms. Comfort while she was pregnant
on the night of October 1, 2013:
He got angry and slapped me. He hit my glasses, he hit my head a couple of times.
He grabbed my hand hard and hit my stomach with car keys, Ravitz said Comfort
told him.

14

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 15 of 30

(Id.) The statements are statements of fact and are categorically false and defamatory. Plaintiff
never abused Ms. Comfort. Furthermore, Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report
the following pertinent facts in connection with the above-referenced statements:

Ms. Comfort provided no evidence to corroborate her allegations. There was

no police report, medical records, text messages or any other evidence to
corroborate her allegations. Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to
report these facts.

Ms. Comfort filed sworn statements in Superior Court for Pierce County
Washington on November 14, 2013 and Superior Court for the District of
Columbia on November 15, 2013 concerning her allegations of family offenses
that did not include the purported October 1, 2013 incident. Ms. Comfort did
not allege she was abused until her third sworn statement filed on November
20, 2013, two hours prior to a calendared hearing on pendente lite custody of
the child. Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report these facts.

Ms. Comfort visited an OB/GYN for a regular check-up and sonogram on

October 4, 2013. Ms. Comfort had alleged in her November 20, 2013 sworn
statement that she had a significant mark on her stomach, which resulted in a
permanent scare. However, Ms. Comforts medical records introduced at trial
and testimony revealed that her OB/GYN did not observe any marks on her
stomach during the sonogram. Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to
report these facts.

Ms. Comfort entered the hospital on October 5, 2013 to give birth. Ms.
Comforts medical records introduced at trial and testimony revealed that none
15

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 16 of 30

of the doctors or nurses who treated her while giving birth observed any marks
or injuries that corroborated her allegations of family offenses. Defendants
New York Post and Marsh failed to report these facts.

Numerous communications, including e-mails and text messages, were

introduced into evidence and given to Dr. Ravitz that discredited Ms. Comfort
allegations. Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report these facts.

Ms. Comfort alleged that the purported incident on October 1, 2013 took place
at approximately 10:00 p.m. Family photographs and metadata introduced at
trial taken two hours later at 12:01 a.m. showed Ms. Comfort without any
marks or injuries as alleged:

(Ex. 6.) Similarly, a series of photographs taken in the days immediately

following that were introduced into evidence at trial showed Ms. Comfort
without any marks or injuries as alleged. (See Ex. 7, Series of Comfort
Photographs.) Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report these facts
and evidence.

16

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 17 of 30

Phone and credit card records revealed that Plaintiff was on the phone with Ms.
Comfort near his office purchasing frozen yogurt during the time period she
alleged the October 1, 2013 happened. Defendants New York Post and Marsh
failed to report these facts.

Accordingly, Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to provide a true and accurate report of
the proceeding with respect to the above-referenced defamatory statement.
29.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh repeated Ms. Comforts unsubstantiated

claims that the abuse continued after the birth of their son and up until she [Ms. Comfort] left
Zappin when the boy was nearly 8 weeks old. (See Ex. 5.) The statements are statements of fact
and are categorically false and defamatory. Plaintiff never abused Ms. Comfort. Furthermore,
Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report on the numerous pieces of exculpatory
evidence presented at trial and to Dr. Ravitz. Most prominently, Dr. Ravitz proffered the following
sexist, outmoded and downright discriminatory reasoning for his conclusion that Plaintiff had
abused Ms. Comfort rather than the reverse:
DR. RAVITZ:

What I make of it is that they had a physical confrontation

with each other. I have I assume that when they have a
physical confrontation with each other that Anthony is
stronger than Claire.

Dr. Ravitz also admitted during his testimony that he was not an expert on domestic violence,
despite improperly opining on the parties allegations in his report and testimony:
DR. RAVITZ:

Thats correct. I didnt because I mean its not my Im not

an expert in determining whether or not abuse has occurred.
Im an expert in psychiatry and child psychiatry and in
forensic psychiatry
***

MR. ZAPPIN:

Because you just testified you are not an expert in evaluating

domestic violence?
17

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 18 of 30

DR. RAVITZ:

Thats correct.

Accordingly, Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to provide a true and accurate report of
the proceeding with respect to the above-referenced defamatory statement.
30.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh stated that Plaintiff was evaluated as

controlling and coercive in addition to being narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive and histrionic

. (Id.) The statements are statements of fact and are categorically false and defamatory.
Furthermore, Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report the following pertinent facts
in connection with the above-referenced statements:

Dr. Ravitz admitted during testimony that he was not qualified to read the
MMPI testing results upon which he primarily based his conclusions
concerning Plaintiffs mental health. Defendants New York Post and Marsh
failed to report these facts.

Plaintiffs treating psychological and psychiatric records provided to the Court

and Dr. Ravitz dating back nearly a decade did not reveal any of these mental
disorders referenced above. Plaintiff had only been diagnosed with minor
depression as an adult. Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report
these facts.

A peer review of Dr. Ravitzs report revealed that Dr. Ravitz employed flawed
methodology during the evaluation and that his conclusions were flawed.
Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report these facts.

Ms. Comfort was diagnosed by Dr. David Layman (the psychologist

performing the testing) as having moderately severe mental illness, which
included being narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive and histrionic. This was in
18

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 19 of 30

addition to Ms. Comfort being diagnosed by Dr. Layman as highly deceptive.

Moreover, Ms. Comfort had an extensive history of alcoholism and admitted
drug use, which caused her to lose her job at Winston & Strawn LLP. Indeed,
this carried over into Plaintiffs marriage with Ms. Comfort where he
introduced evidence that Ms. Comfort drank while pregnant and highlighted
text messages she provided to Dr. Ravitz where she admitted to showing up to
client meetings at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP hungover with her clothes
inside-out. Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report these facts.
Accordingly, Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to provide a true and accurate report
of the proceeding with respect to the above-referenced defamatory statement.
31.

Defendants New York Post and Marsh published the following photograph with the

November 13, 2015 articles that painted Plaintiff in a false and defamatory light:

(Id.) The image makes it appear as if Plaintiff is being arrested as Defendants New York Post and
Marsh superimposed and/or solicited a photograph with an NYPD police officer in the background
19

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 20 of 30

as Plaintiff was exiting the courthouse. Plaintiff was not arrested and did not have any involvement
with the police. The picture is particularly defamatory where Defendants New York Post and
Marsh falsely repeated and alleged in the November 13, 2015 articles that Plaintiff engaged in
criminal behavior.
Defendants New York Post and Marshs Failure to Provide a True
and Accurate Report as to Plaintiffs Allegations of Domestic Violence
32.

Defendants scheme to defame Plaintiff is apparent when one looks at Plaintiff and

Ms. Comforts allegations of domestic violence and how they were reported on by Defendants
New York Post and Marsh. Indeed, Defendants New York Post and Marsh go to great lengths to
portray Ms. Comfort as a domestic violence victim even quoting sealed testimony well-before
the close of evidence, well-aware that there was significant evidence that contradicted her claims
and knowing that Plaintiff provided extensive evidence that Ms. Comfort domestically abused him.
As detailed below, Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to provide a true and accurate
report as to Plaintiffs allegations of domestic abuse. Rather, Defendants New York Post and
Marshs colluded with Justice Cooper to publicize a substantially unfair report of the trial and Dr.
Ravitzs testimony that was meant to poison the well publicly against Plaintiff and portray him in
a false light such that it would have been impossible for Plaintiff to be awarded custody of and/or
reasonable access with his child.
33.

In the November 13, 2015 articles, Defendants New York Post and Marsh write:

Zappin denies he was abusive and claims it was Comfort who got violent. He read
a text he said he sent her. Why am I being so mean? Because youre a fcking
lunatic who claimed the st out of my face and bit my dk, Zappin read.
(Ex. 5.) Defendants reporting on Plaintiffs allegations appears to be almost satirical in nature.
Moreover, they reported on an alleged text message that was never entered into evidence where
there was a plethora of photographs and other evidence that demonstrated Plaintiff was beaten and
20

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 21 of 30

abused by Ms. Comfort. This is evidence of Defendant New York Post and Marshs intent to
portray Plaintiff in a false light.
34.

Plaintiff was in fact a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by Ms. Comfort. At

trial, Plaintiff introduced testimony, a police report and photographic evidence that Ms. Comfort
beat and stabbed Plaintiff in the leg (attempting to stab him in the genitals) on November 1, 2015.
This evidence was previously provided to Dr. Ravitz, who provided testimony concerning it. This
evidence included the following photographs:

21

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 22 of 30

22

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 23 of 30

(Ex. 8.) Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report on these facts and evidence.
Accordingly, they did not provide a fair and accurate report in their November 13, 2015 articles
concerning the Zappin v. Comfort trial and Dr. Ravitzs testimony.
35.

At trial, Plaintiff introduced testimony and photographic evidence that Ms. Comfort

clawed Plaintiffs face in August 2013. Ms. Comfort admitted that she did indeed assault Plaintiff
in such as fashion. This evidence was previously provided to Dr. Ravitz, who provided testimony
concerning it. This evidence included the following photograph:

(Ex. 9.) Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report on these facts and evidence.
Accordingly, they did not provide a fair and accurate report in their November 13, 2015 articles
concerning the Zappin v. Comfort trial and Dr. Ravitzs testimony.
36.

At trial, Plaintiff introduced testimony and photographic evidence that Ms. Comfort

repeatedly stabbed Plaintiff in the arm with a fork in April 2013. Ms. Comfort did not deny that
she abused Plaintiff in such a fashion. This evidence was previously provided to Dr. Ravitz, who
provided testimony concerning it. This evidence included the following photograph:

23

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 24 of 30

(Ex. 10.) Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report on these facts and evidence.
Accordingly, teydid not provide a fair and accurate report in their November 13, 2015 article
concerning the Zappin v. Comfort trial and Dr. Ravitzs testimony.
37.

At trial, Plaintiff introduced testimony and photographic evidence that Ms. Comfort

clawed Plaintiffs back causing permanent scaring. Ms. Comfort did not deny that she abused
Plaintiff in such a fashion. This evidence was previously provided to Dr. Ravitz, who provided
testimony concerning it. This evidence included the following photographs:

24

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 25 of 30

(Ex. 11.) Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report on these facts and evidence.
Accordingly, they did not provide a fair and accurate report in their November 13, 2015 article
concerning the Zappin v. Comfort trial and Dr. Ravitzs testimony.
38.

The above-referenced photographs are just a small portion of the evidence

presented at trial in Zappin v. Comfort and to Dr. Ravitz during the forensic custody evaluation
that corroborated Plaintiffs allegations that Ms. Comfort physically abused Plaintiff on numerous
occasions. Defendants New York Post and Marsh failed to report on any of this evidence and Dr.
Ravitzs testimony concerning it. Instead, they chose to discredit Plaintiff by attempting to paint
him as making seemingly outrageous claims from documents that were never introduced into
evidence. Accordingly, when it comes to Defendants New York Post and Marsh reporting on the
allegations of domestic violence in the November 13, 2015 articles, the above demonstrates it was
not a true and accurate report of the proceedings.
Justice Coopers Denial of Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights
39.

Justice Cooper conspired with Defendants New York Post and Marsh to defame

Plaintiff by tipping Defendant Marsh off as to the timing and substance of Dr. Ravitzs testimony
prior to the commencement of the custody and access trial in Zappin v. Comfort. Justice Coopers
improper conduct of tipping off the media as to the confidential testimony of the forensic custody
evaluator in Zappin v. Comfort in an effort to generate negative and defamatory publicity of
Plaintiff denied Plaintiff the right to a full and fair custody trial. Specifically, Justice Cooper
undertook deliberate and intentional acts to generate unwarranted and deleterious publicity
concerning Plaintiff at the outset of the custody and access trial in Zappin v. Comfort. This
publicity was highly prejudicial to Plaintiff and violated Plaintiffs constitutional right to a fair

25

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 26 of 30

trial. See Powers v. Coe, 728 F.2d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 1984); Jovanoic v. City of New York, 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 591165 at **42-44 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2006).
40.

It is fundamental that the trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to

minimize the effects of prejudicial publicity. Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v.

Legget, 48 N.Y.2d 430, 438 (N.Y. 1978) (emphasis added). Prejudicial publicity can occur even
in bench trials. See Anonymous v. Anonymous, 191 Misc.2d 707 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2002)
([D]isseminaton of news or comments may tend to influence the judge ... from being impartial at
trial.); see also In re Halkin, 598 F.2d 176, 193 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (noting that the threat of
prejudicial publicity is entitled to some weight in a bench trial). As a result of Justice Coopers
extrajudicial contact with news media and Defendants collusion to defame Plaintiff through
negative and false statements in The New York Post, Plaintiff was denied the right to a fair trial as
Defendants publicly painted Plaintiff in a false light that would have made it impossible to award
Plaintiff custody of his young son.
41.

Justice Cooper is not entitled to judicial immunity for his extrajudicial contact and

collusion with Defendants New York Post and Marsh. It is not a judicial act for a judicial officer
to directly contact a member of the media or conspire with the media to make defamatory
statements concerning a litigant. It is well-settled that the making allegedly false statements to
the news media does not qualify as a judicial act. Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246, 260-61
(6th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiffs Damages
42.

As a result of Defendants false and defamatory statements published in The New

York Post, Plaintiff has suffered incalculable damages. As a direct result of Defendants false
statements, Plaintiff has been unable to find employment as an attorney. Defendants false
26

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 27 of 30

statements directed at the public and, more specifically, the bar have irreparably harmed Plaintiffs
professional standing and have prevented Plaintiff from exercising reasonable and frequent access
with his child.

Plaintiff has been unjustly held up to public contempt, ridicule and disgrace

because of Defendants unlawful conduct towards Plaintiff. Most importantly, Plaintiff was
denied a full and fair trial by Justice Cooper where, as the sole fact-finder, Justice Cooper
effectively terminated Plaintiffs parental rights.
COUNT I DEFAMATION/INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD
(All Defendants)
43.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by references paragraph 1 - 42 of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

44.

Defendant New York Post and Defendant Marsh have made false and defamatory

statements concerning Plaintiff as set forth above in this Complaint.

45.

Defendant New York Post and Defendant Marshs statements are statement of fact

and are demonstrably false.

46.

Defendant New York Post and Defendant Marsh published these false statements

to numerous individuals through print and electronic means.

47.

Defendant New York Post and Defendant Marsh enjoy no privilege concerning its

statements.
48.

When Plaintiff made Defendant New York Post and Defendant Marsh aware that

their statements concerning Plaintiff were false, Defendants took no action to mitigate Plaintiffs
damages or retract its false statements concerning Plaintiff.
49.

Defendant New York Post, Defendant Marsh and Defendant Justice Cooper

engaged in a civil conspiracy to defame Plaintiff through Defendant New York Post and Defendant
Marshs published statements set forth above. Either expressly or implicitly in communications
27

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 28 of 30

prior to the commencement of the November 12, 2015 custody and access trial concerning the
timing and substance of Dr. Alan Ravitzs testimony, they agreed with one another to engage in
the unlawful endeavor to defame and injure Plaintiff. Their conduct constitutes an agreement to
accomplish an unlawful objective, which is a conspiracy. Through the conspiracy, Defendant
Justice Cooper is liable for all acts committed by Defendant New York Post and Defendant Marsh
in publishing false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff.
50.

As a result of Defendants defamatory statements and conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered severe harm and is entitled to actual and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
trial. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant New York Post and Defendant
Marsh to remove the defamatory material from The New York Post websites.
COUNT II - DENIAL OF FAIR TRIAL DUE TO EXTRAJUDICIAL
STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT AND UNDUE PRETRIAL
PUBLICLITY CAUSED BY DEFENDANT PRIOR TO TRIAL (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988)
(Defendant Justice Cooper)
51.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by references paragraph 1 - 50 of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

52.

Justice Cooper engaged in extrajudicial conduct by tipping off the press, including

Defendant New York Post and Defendant Marsh, to proceedings in a statutorily sealed matter.
Specifically, Justice Cooper tipped off Defendant New York Post and Defendant Marsh
concerning the timing and substance of Dr. Alan Ravitzs confidential report and testimony prior
to the commencement of the custody and access trial in Zappin v. Comfort. Justice Coopers intent
in communicating with the media was to generate publicity of Zappin v. Comfort and to negatively
and falsely portray Plaintiff in published media. Justice Coopers extrajudicial contact with the
media, including Defendant New York Post and Defendant Marsh, was undertaken with the intent

28

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 29 of 30

to cause Plaintiff harm and prevent him from fully and fairly litigating the custody and access trial
in Zappin v. Comfort.
53.

Justice Cooper knew that the negative publicity would harm Plaintiff. Justice

Cooper further knew and intended that the uncorroborated allegations recited by Dr. Alan Ravitz
on the record in his testimony at the November 12, 2015 trial would be republished in the media,
including by Defendant New York Post and Defendant Marsh. Justice Coopers actions in tipping
off the media and colluding with Defendant New York Post and Defendant Marsh to defame
Plaintiff were undertaken with the deliberate intent to harm Plaintiffs reputation, employment,
livelihood and professional standing.
54.

As set forth above, the custody and access trial was heavily influenced by Justice

Coopers solicitation of unlawful publicity, including Defendant New York Post and Defendant
Marshs November 13, 2015 articles published in The New York Post. Plaintiff was unduly
prejudiced at trial by Justice Coopers soliciting media attention concerning Dr. Alan Ravitzs
testimony at the custody and access trial in Zappin v. Comfort.
55.

As a result of Justice Coopers extrajudicial statements to the press, Plaintiff was

denied his constitutional right to due process and to a fair trial in Zappin v. Comfort under the
United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs constitutional right to access to his
child has been unduly restricted and denied for an extended period of time, which continues as of
the filing of this Complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff has unconstitutionally been denied and stripped
of his property as a result of Defendants denial of Plaintiffs right to a fair trial. Plaintiff has
suffered substantial economic losses, permanent damage to his personal and professional
reputation and deprivation of his liberty. Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be
determined at trial.
29

Case 1:16-cv-08838 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 30 of 30

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues which may be properly tried by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court:
(a)

Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants;

(b)

Enter judgment awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages on all counts herein to

compensate Plaintiff for Defendants activity complained of herein and for any injury complained
of herein, inclusive of interest and costs, in an amount to be determined at trial;
(c)

Enter judgment awarding punitive, exemplary, enhanced and/or treble damages as

allowed by applicable state and federal law in an amount to be determined at trial;

(d)

Enter judgment awarding Plaintiff injunctive relief requiring Defendants to remove

their defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff from their websites.

(e)

Enter judgment awarding Plaintiff his fees and costs reasonably incurred in this

action as allowed by applicable state and federal law; and

(f)

Order such other relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.

Dated: November 14, 2016

Huntington, WV

______________________________
Anthony Zappin
1827 Washington Blvd.
Huntington, WV 25701
(304) 654-6195 (tel.)
anthony.zappin@gmail.com
Plaintiff, Pro Se
30