Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co. — dissenting

Summary

The dissent argues that the self-represented plaintiff’s allegations concerning the misleading photograph and captions should have been liberally construed as presenting, or at least supporting amendment to present, an independent defamation claim. It maintains that the trial court should not have terminated that claim through summary judgment without explaining the defect and allowing an opportunity to replead, because the defect was curable and amendment would not prejudice the defendant. Justice Ecker, joined by Justice D’Auria, would reverse and remand for amendment and further proceedings, and criticizes the majority’s strict-neutrality approach to self-represented litigants.