Two years ago, Burr Ridge Patch reported that the suit for defamation filed seven years ago by Mayor Gary Grosso against then-mayoral opponent Zach Mottl and his political consulting firm Cor Strategies and its then-President Collin Corbett. was been settled out of court with Motti for a confidential monetary payment.
Motti denied liability.
Corbett and Cor Strategies remain as defendants as the result of a Third Appellate District ruling.
Corbett is now a candidate for Governor,
Grasso said he filed the suit “to take a stand against negative campaigning,” as well as to protect his reputation.
During the campaign Motti charged Grasso of being a “mobster,” based on receipt of a $5,000 campaign contribution for former felon Filippo “Gigi” Rovito, owner of two local establishments, while he was seeking the nomination of Illinois’ Attorney General. After a Downstate television station pointed out Rovito’s background Grasso returned the contribution.
Motti also pointed out that Grasso had two Homestead Exemptions, while state law allows only one. That led to a charge that Grasso was engaged in “tax fraud.” Grasso said that the Cook County Assessor mistakenly continued the Homestead Exemption of the former condo owner.
Two years ago, DuPage Associate Judge David E. Schwartz dismissed the case against Motti and Corbett, ruling that “actual malice” had not been proven.
Grasso appealed the Circuit Court dismissal of that part of his original suit which referred to “tax fraud.”
That Appellate Court decision leaves Corbett and his former consulting firm as defendants,
That will result in a new trial at the Circuit Court level where “whether defendants recklessly disregarded the truth in publishing the mailer” will be determined.
The Appellate Court ruling says, “The narrow question presented in this appeal is whether the evidence of record supports that plaintiff has shown with convincing clarity that a reasonable jury might find defendants published the mailers with actual malice.
“In the light most favorable to plaintiff, we hold that such a triable issue exists. Corbett testified at deposition that defendants relied on the America Rising research report for the information they featured within the mailers.
“He and/or COR vetted that information by examining governmental records that corroborated the research report’s findings concerning simultaneous homestead exemptions.
“In turn, defendants crafted and published the mailers.
“Corbett testified to his direct involvement in drafting mailer No. 5, which included similar allegations from the preceding two mailers that plaintiff had committed fraud in the amount of $36,000….
“Corbett was unable to explain the “math” defendants used to formulate the $36,000 figure, let alone the alleged ‘more than $36,000’ accusation in mailers Nos. 3 and 4…
“When viewed in light most favorable to plaintiff, Corbett’s testimony indicates that following their independent vetting of the report, defendants published information on their own accord that the report did not reflect…
“Taken further, based on Corbett’s testimony, defendants appear to be the ‘original source of the defamatory statement’ that plaintiff committed fraud in an amount and inferentially over a time period that when read in the light most favorable to plaintiff was untrue…
“Considering the foregoing, a reasonable jury might find that Corbett’s testimony provides convincing clarity that defendants published the mailers with reckless disregard for the truth…
“the question before us is whether there is sufficient evidence shown that defendants subjectively knew that the information in the
mailers was false or that they recklessly disregarded the truth.
“We can reach no other conclusion than a genuine issue of material fact is presented concerning whether defendants recklessly
disregarded the truth in accusing plaintiff of $36,000 in tax fraud, when neither the government documents nor the America Rising research report upon which defendants allegedly relied support that figure.
“As such, summary judgment was inappropriate where the record establishes a triable issue on the question of actual malice.”
