Steinbrenner v. Esquire Reporting Company, Inc.

1991 WL 102540 (1991)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Steinbrenner v. Esquire Reporting Company, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
1991 WL 102540 (1991)

Facts

George Steinbrenner (plaintiff) was the principal owner and managing general partner of the New York Yankees (Yankees). In March 1990, Francis T. Vincent, the commissioner of Major League Baseball, began investigating Steinbrenner’s conduct. Vincent retained John Dowd to conduct a preliminary investigation. Dowd’s investigation primarily consisted of interviews, all of which were transcribed by Phillip C. Rizzuti (defendant), a stenographer employed by Esquire Reporting Company (defendant). The participants agreed that only Dowd would receive the interview transcripts. At Dowd’s request, Rizzuti made stylistic or grammatical revisions to the transcripts (such as correcting typographical errors and other nonsubstantive modifications), which Rizzuti believed did not affect the transcripts’ meaning. The witnesses were not notified of these revisions, which Rizzuti believed was proper because only Dowd was to receive the transcripts. Steinbrenner ultimately discovered that the transcripts had been revised, which led him to try to verify the transcripts’ accuracy by comparing them against Rizzuti’s notes (rather than by the less-expensive method of examining marked-up transcript drafts showing all modifications). Based on changes to the transcript of his own interview, Steinbrenner demanded Vincent end the investigation; Vincent declined that demand. After negotiations with Steinbrenner (in which Steinbrenner did not raise any transcript-related issues), Vincent permanently banned Steinbrenner from serving as the Yankees’ general managing partner. Pursuant to the Steinbrenner-Vincent agreement, Steinbrenner released any legal claims against Vincent or any of his representatives. Steinbrenner proceeded to sue Esquire Reporting Company, Rizzuti, and Malcolm L. Elvey (collectively, Esquire) (defendants) under New York law for notarial misconduct, injurious falsehood, and breach of fiduciary duty. Steinbrenner sought $530,000 in damages to recoup his expenses in analyzing the transcripts. Esquire moved for summary judgment, arguing that the release barred Steinbrenner’s claims because Esquire reasonably believed it was Vincent’s representative and that Steinbrenner did not raise a triable issue of fact that, among other things, the transcript changes were material or that Esquire proximately caused his claimed damage. Steinbrenner responded with an affidavit stating his belief that Esquire was not a representative of Vincent.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sweet, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership