STATE OF NEW YORK ‘SUPREME COURT COUNTY (ONR’ MICHAEL AMALFI, SR., Plaintiff, COMPLAINT v. Index No. KIMBERLY RAY, BARRY BECK, WAIO-FM/RADIO 95.1, and iHEARTMEDIA, INC. Defendants. Plaintiff, MICHAEL AMALFI, SR., by his attorneys, Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP, for his complaint against the Defendants, alleges as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1, This is an action in which the Plaintiff, Michael Amalfi, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) seeks damages from the Defendants as a result of defamatory statements about him which were broadcast on May 13, 2015 during an afternoon radio show on WAIO-FM/Radio 95.1. ‘The statements were made by two program hosts, Defendants, Kimberly Ray and Barry Beck, on a radio show billed as “Kimberly and Beck in the Afternoon” (the “Broadcast”). PARTIES 2. Plaintiff is, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a resident of the County of Broward, State of Florida, 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Kimberly Ray, is, andat all 2 times hereinafter mentioned was, a resident of the County of Monroe and State of NewYork fe 4, Upon information and belief, Defendant, Barry Beck, is, “ff ui hereinafter mentioned was, a resident of the County ‘of Monroe and State of New. ne. = (3261879: ) ‘Woods Oviatt Gilman Lr a 700 Crossroads Bullding ‘PState Sheet Rochester, New Fork 140145. Upon information and belief, Defendant, WAIO-FM/Radio 95.1, is, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with an office for the transaction of business located at 100 Chestnut Street, #1700, Rochester, New York. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant, iHeartMedia, Inc. is, and at all. times hereinafter mentioned was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with an office for the transaction of business located at 100 Chestnut Street, #1700, Rochester, New York. BACKGROUND 7: Plaintiff was bom and raised in the Rochester, New York area, For many years he worked with his father, Charles, and his two brothers in a family meat market, aptly named “Amalfi’s.” The business ceased operating in approximately 2000 and the building was sold thereafter. 8. The Plaintiff is not a “public figure” although he is involved in civic affairs to a limited degree, In that regard, he is an Honorary Member and past Chair of the Golisano Children’s Hospital Board and a Member of the University of Rochester Medical Center Board of Directors, the Flaum Eye Institute Board of Directors and the New York State Signal 30 Police Advisory Board. Other than quietly supporting the charities with which he is involved, the Plaintiff does not take public positions on the issues of the day and avoids the limelight. THE PROGRAM HOSTS 9. Before they were hired by WAIO-FM/RADIO 95.1, Defendants, Kimberly Ray and Barry Beek, were employed by WBZA, “the Buzz” radio station in Rochester. They were the hosts of a morning program “Breakfast Buzz” until they were suspended on May (26187:) ‘Woods Oviatt Gilman ue 70 Crossroads Busting Site Stent Rochester, New Tork 161421, 2014 before being terminated outright thereafter, Their termination followed a controversy prompted by their on-air rant over the recent expansion of transgender healthcare benefits by the City of Rochester. 10, On that broadcast, Defendant, Kimberly Ray, reportedly declared: “the dude can look like a lady, and the City is going to pay for it. .. your tax dollars at work!” Later in the broadcast, Defendant, Barry Beck, asked a rhetorical question: “Does that mean that if a ‘woman wants to have a boob job, they'll pay for the boob job?” 11, Following their termination, a statement from the Vice President and General Manager of WBZA’s corporate owner, Entercom Rochester, noted as follows: This moming Entercom fired Kimberly and Beck effective immediately. ‘Their hateful comments against the transgender community do not represent our station or our company. We deeply apologize to the transgender community, the community of Rochester, and anyone else who was offended by their hateful comments, We are proud of our past work on behalf of the local LGBT community and we remain committed to that partnership. This announcement was preceded by an online petition demanding that the hosts be fired for their comments. 12, Evidently, based, in part, upon their demonstrated propensity for incendiary and/or offensive comments and the perceived audience appeal of such comments, Ms. Ray and Mr, Beck were hired by the Defendants, WAIO-FM/95.1 and iHeartMedia, Ine. and put on the air at that station THE BROADCAST 13, On May 13, 2015, Ms. Ray and Mr. Beck hosted an afternoon program on WAIO-FMI9S. billed as “Kimberly and Beck in the Afternoon.” 14, During the Broadcast, Ms. Ray and Mr. Beck began to discuss a news story regarding the Plaintiff's son, Michael Amalfi, Jr, Mr. Amalfi’s son had pled guilty to a {s26ist9:) ‘Woods Oviatt Gilman uP 700 Grogondsuiding Teles Stec Rochester, New Tork 464violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956(h) (conspiracy to commit money laundering) and 21 U.S.C. §846 (conspiracy to traffic in drugs) arising out of the sale of marijuana between 2010 and 2013. 15. After incorrectly asserting that the money laundering and marijuana sales * took place at the Brighton Restaurant on East Avenue, a business with which Michael Amalfi, J. had been involved, the program hosts proceeded to impugn the Plaintiff. In particular, during the Broadcast, the following exchange took place: Kimberly: Michael Amalfi admitted to money laundering during __________the _same_time_as the alleged drug trafficking Still ______ facing charges are Alexander Green and Charles Green, who are brothers. A sentencing date has not been set. He is free’ though on $50,000 bail because, I think, daddy Michael Amalfi, Sr. has beaucoup bucks. His family use to own a meat market on North Avenue and Portland Avenue in the City. He sold pounds of Marijuana. . . I would say allegedly. Beck: Pounds of it? Kimberly: Allegedly. Beck: Yeah. Kimberly: Not pounds of steak, but pounds of dope — allegedly. 16. Later in the Broadcast, Ms, Ray and Mr. Beck dispensed with their insincere use of the word “allegedly” and made categorical, but false, statements of fact. After a caller telphoned to discuss the Plaintiff's affiliation with Amalfi’s Meat Market, the following exchange took place: Caller No. 2: Absolutely, you know when you were talking about Michael Amalfi, I was like is that the one who use to own the Amalfi Meat Market on Portland? Kimberly and Beck: Yep. + (5261879: Woods Oviatt Gilman Lue 0 Cieseage ling Rochester, New York 14814| Kimberly: _Large quantities — you're not going to have S0_people— Kimberly: Yeah, well they grew up to run the Brighton and use it asa drug and money laundering front. Beck: This is where my mind goes ~ if it’s so neat, why not combine the two ~ meat and marijuana. ee Kimberly: I don’t, I don’t think they were selling litle bits, I think they were selling large quantities. Beck: Large quantities? come up to buy a dime bag from whatever. Beck: Let's just call it the BJ's of marijuana sales ~ I mean there is large quantities ~ you know ‘They're not selling to like random people driving up and whatever. THE TRUTH 17. The Plaintiff has never been engaged in the sale of marijuana or any other illicit substances. Amalfi's Meat Market was not an outlet for the merchandising of marijuana either in small quantities or large quantities as the program hosts claimed, The statements of and concerning the Plaintiff enumerated above were false. ‘THE EFFECTS OF THE BROADCAST 18. The Broadcast portrayed the Plaintiff in a negative light and accused him of engaging in criminal and felonious conduct. 19. ‘The Broadcast impugned the Plaintiff in his trade or business by asserting that Amalfi’s Meat Market was not a legitimate outlet for meat and meat products but, rather, ‘was a front for illegal activity including the sale of large quantities of illegal drugs. (261579:) ‘Woods Oviatt Gilman Lue 700 Gearon Bulding ‘Ste Steet Rochester New York 4014AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 20. Plaintiff repeats sind re-alleges paragraph “1” through “19” as if more fully set forth herein. 21. The Broadcast falsely portrayed the Plaintiff as a person engaged in the business of selling large quantities of illegal drugs and as someone who would put himself and those around him at risk by engaging in serious criminal activity. 22. The false and defamatory statements made by the program hosts imputed to the Plaintiff crimes involving moral turpitude and are slanderous per se and libelous on their face. 23. As aresult of the foregoing, the Broadcast was false and defamatory. 24, The logical result and inevitable effect of this defamation was to expose the Plaintiff to ridicule, obloquy, disgrace and embarrassment. 25, The Defendants, individually and collectively, are responsible for the dissemination.of this false and defamatory broadcast to the public. 26. As aresult of the foregoing, the Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 27. — Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs “1' through “26” as if more fully set forth herein. 28. The Broadcast falsely portrayed the Plaintiff as a person engaged in the business of selling large quantities of illegal drugs and as someone who would put at risk a legitimate business by engaging in serious criminal activity Cia) Woods Oviatt Gilman Lr "0 Coareags Bang ‘Paaesiec aceser New or 161429, The false and defamatory statements made by the program hosts imputed to the Plaintiff negative and unsavory traits that are inconsistent with the Plaintiff's business Pursuits and are slanderous per se and libelous on their face. 30. Asa result of the foregoing, the Broadcast was false and defamatory. 31. The logical result and inevitable effect of this defamation was to expose the Plaintiff to ridicule, obloquy, disgrace and embarrassment. 32. The Defendants, individually and collectively, are responsible for the dissemination of this false and defamatory broadcast to the public. 33, Asa result of the foregoing, the Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows: A. Onhis first cause of action, damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; B. _ Onhis second cause of action, damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. C. Exemplary damages to be determined by the trier of fact; and D. The costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: September 9, 2015 woo! TT GILMAN LLP By: Z Donald W. O'Brien, rEg Attorneys for Plaintiffs s & 700 Crossroads Building 2 2 State Street © Rochester, New York 14614 .* 585.987.2800 & Ad Fe s (326579; ‘Woods Oviatt Gilman Lr 0 Create Buin ‘Sate Steet Rochestor, Now Tork 14014