A defamation suit filed by a former South Orange-Maplewood Board of Education member against another former BOE member and several community members was dismissed in court with prejudice in a ruling filed on April 25, 2025 in Superior Court of New Jersey, and the judge ruled that the “Court will award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to Defendants.” See the dismissal attached below.
Additionally, a misdemeanor charge against Columbia High School Principal Frank Sanchez was dismissed in Maplewood municipal court on April 17.
The two court cases are related in that they revolve around the arrest of Sanchez in March of 2024 on a felony charge of child endangerment and a misdemeanor charge of simple assault related to a 2023 altercation with a 15-year-old CHS student. A grand jury dismissed the felony charge against Sanchez last June. Sanchez was reinstated as Principal days later, after being placed on administrative leave in January 2024.
A grassroots group called “Friends of Frank” formed after his arrest to raise funds for Sanchez’s legal fees and held rallies in his support. Former BOE member Courtney Winkfield and Friends of Frank alleged that the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office had brought charges based on unvetted information that they said was inappropriately provided to the Maplewood Police Department by former BOE member Elissa Malespina.
In December 2024, Malespina, who admitted that she did deliver a draft report regarding the altercation between Sanchez and the student to Maplewood police but did so because she is a “mandatory reporter,” filed a defamation suit against Winkfield and several members of “Friends of Frank” alleging the defendants “maliciously, intentionally, and/or recklessly defamed” her by stating she “acted in a criminal manner, acted in an unethical manner, and directly caused Principal Frank Sanchez, Principal at Columbia High School, to be arrested and charged with a felony and misdemeanor.”
In his ruling, the Hon. Jeffrey Beacham wrote, “Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of any cause of action in the Complaint, and/or Defendants have established that the Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted, and/or or there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Following the dismissal of the defamation suit, attorneys for the defendants said via a press release from Friends of Frank (see the full release attached below): “As the motion seeking dismissal stated, this case involved exactly the sort of controversy that does not belong in the courtroom, and the true intent of the complaint was to send a message of intimidation throughout the community. The court’s decision confirms that New Jersey law does not tolerate exploitation of the judicial process as a pretext to punish speech that should be addressed by open debate instead.”
Winkfield, and two other women named in the suit — Rachel Fisher and Stephanie Nasteff — shared, “This lawsuit has been an unwelcome experience. We’re just gratified that, as in Frank’s case, there is a just outcome for something that never should have happened in the first place. We hope this decision sends a message that, in our community, any effort to use the legal system to punish people for voicing their opinions will fail. Heartfelt thanks to the many neighbors who donated to our defense because they recognized the principle at stake.”
James Davis, attorney for Malespina, sent the following statement: “While the decision by the court is disappointing, the community should be clear about a few facts regarding Ms. Malespina. Despite the pervasive claims that she did something wrong, not one person filed an ethics charge against her in this instance. Ms. Malespina’s actions were investigated by the school district. However, the school district has refused to share the results of the investigation. Ms. Malespina was never investigated by any law enforcement agencies as well. I admire Ms. Malespina’s fortitude for attempting to clear her name in a court of law rather than attack and demonize others on Facebook or other social media posts.”
John McMahon, attorney for Sanchez, confirmed the dismissal of the misdemeanor charge against his client, but otherwise declined to comment on the dismissal.
Village Green also reached out to the Maplewood prosecutor regarding the dismissal of the charge against Sanchez; the prosecutor declined to comment.
UPDATE: On May 10, Winkfield signed a settlement and release document related to a defamation suit brought by Davis in federal court on behalf of the student involved in the incident. An email from Friends of Frank described the settlement as follows: “After Winkfield’s lawyers (the same as the lawyers in the Malespina case) pointed out that the jurisdiction is wrong and the strong likelihood that, due to the lack of evidence of defamation, Davis’ client would be subject to fee adjustments upon dismissal by the courts (as in the state ANTI SLAPP case), Davis consented to dismiss the suit against Winkfield with prejudice and include a release of any claims against Winkfield or any Friends of Frank members. Ms. Winkfield could have sought lawyer fees but chose not to out of consideration for the client.” Friends of Frank provided a redacted copy of the agreement to Village Green.
Reached for comment, Davis responded: “After Frank Sanchez apologized to my client and her mother, which was just one of the conditions of the dismissal of the criminal misdemeanor charge against Sanchez, my client decided that the other violations by the school district outweighed any additional efforts to continue to hold Ms. Winkfield accountable for defamation. When all is said and done, there will be no evidence that my client was ever in a fight nor on her way to a fight as asserted all over social media and various news sources by certain members of the community. I am inspired by the resilience of my client to advocate for herself and the effort to clear her name in a court of law is not over. Despite the threats, harassment and ridicule that she experienced from social media, she has made great strides since changing schools and she continues to excel academically.”
This story was updated on May 12, 2025.
Read the full May 8 statement from Friends of Frank here:
PRESS RELEASE
From: Friends of Frank, Maplewood, NJ
May 8, 2025
Another chapter in the story of Frank Sanchez’s wrongful prosecution has come to a close.
On December 12, 2024 Elissa Malespina and her lawyer James Davis filed a complaint against three Friends of Frank, alleging defamation in their effort to rally the community to the defense of wrongly accused (and since fully exonerated) CHS Principal Frank Sanchez.* The South Orange/Maplewood community raised over $25,000 for the legal defense of the women who were targeted: Courtney Winkfield, Rachel Fisher and Stephanie Nasteff.
On May 7 Judge Beacham of NJ Superior Court entered the decision for Malespina v. Winkfield, Fisher, Nasteff et al into the record: dismissed with prejudice. (see attached)
Judge Beacham offered a full explanation of the decision live on Zoom. In that explanation, the court specifically addressed and rejected each of the arguments that Ms. Malespina made to justify the lawsuit. The court agreed that the lawsuit was a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” (called a SLAPP suit), intended to punish speech on a matter of public concern, and that nothing alleged in the complaint could support a legitimate defamation case.
The counsel for the three women are now preparing a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees under New Jersey’s Anti-SLAPP law. This case is one of only a handful under New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP statute, which became law in 2023.
Upon receiving the decision, the attorneys for the three women, Zachary Wellbrock and JH Oliverio of Anselmi & Carver, said, “As the motion seeking dismissal stated, this case involved exactly the sort of controversy that does not belong in the courtroom, and the true intent of the complaint was to send a message of intimidation throughout the community. The court’s decision confirms that New Jersey law does not tolerate exploitation of the judicial process as a pretext to punish speech that should be addressed by open debate instead.”
Winkfield, Fisher and Nasteff shared, “This lawsuit has been an unwelcome experience. We’re just gratified that, as in Frank’s case, there is a just outcome for something that never should have happened in the first place. We hope this decision sends a message that, in our community, any effort to use the legal system to punish people for voicing their opinions will fail. Heartfelt thanks to the many neighbors who donated to our defense because they recognized the principle at stake.”
*The Essex County Prosecutor’s Office criminal case against Frank Sanchez was dismissed by a grand jury on June 13, 2024, and a misdemeanor charge in Maplewood Municipal Court was dismissed on April 17, 2025.
