Ohad Fisherman, the New York real estate broker once tagged in headlines as the “New York Hummus Hunk,” has taken his fight to Miami-Dade Circuit Court. On March 13, 2026, he filed a defamation lawsuit claiming a cluster of South Florida outlets wrongly linked him to the Alexander brothers’ sex trafficking case. Fisherman is suing the Miami Herald, The Real Deal, WPLG Local 10 and WSVN for more than $100,000, saying their coverage wrecked his reputation even after prosecutors dropped a state sexual battery charge against him.
What Fisherman Says the Media Got Wrong
The complaint, filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, names The McClatchy Company (doing business as the Miami Herald), Korangy Publishing (The Real Deal), WPLG Local 10 and Sunbeam Television (WSVN) as defendants. It alleges the outlets effectively “equated” Fisherman’s lone state charge with the Alexander brothers’ sprawling federal sex trafficking prosecution. According to the filing, older stories stayed online in a way that made it look as if Fisherman had been a co-conspirator in the Alexanders’ alleged scheme, even after his own case was gone.
The suit lists Brito, PLLC as Fisherman’s counsel and seeks damages in excess of $100,000, along with a jury trial. The complaint, which is available online, argues that updates or follow-up pieces on the dismissal did not undo what Fisherman calls the harm from earlier coverage.
How Fisherman’s State Charge Disappeared
Prosecutors dropped the single sexual battery charge against Fisherman on July 7, 2025, after defense attorneys produced a social media video they said showed him on a boat when the alleged assault on Miami Beach was supposed to have happened, according to a statement from the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office. Local TV reporters later aired court documents and video metadata that defense lawyers said backed up that alibi, and NBC 6 covered Fisherman’s press conference after the dismissal, where he again insisted he was innocent.
The Federal Verdict That Supercharged Coverage
The Alexander brothers were convicted on federal sex trafficking charges in Manhattan on March 9, 2026, a blockbuster verdict that ramped up national attention on anyone who had ever surfaced around the case, according to CBS News. Fisherman’s lawsuit claims that in the rush to cover the high-profile trial, some reporting blurred the line between his long-dismissed state charge and the Alexanders’ federal prosecution, and that earlier coverage kept shaping the public record even after prosecutors had walked away from his case.
News Outlets Defend Their Reporting
The Real Deal founder Amir Korangy told Miami New Times that his outlet “reported fairly and accurately” on the allegations tied to Fisherman and the Alexanders. According to that same report, the other news organizations named in the suit did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Fisherman’s complaint argues that later stories noting the dropped charge did not cure what he contends were defamatory earlier articles, especially as those pieces continued to live online. The filing asks the court to step in and award damages for what he says is ongoing reputational harm.
Legal Fine Print in a High-Profile Fight
Florida law requires plaintiffs to serve a short notice on media defendants before filing a libel or slander case, under Florida Statute §770.01. Courts also treat cases differently depending on whether the person suing is a private individual or a public figure. Guidance for Florida reporters notes that public figures generally must prove “actual malice,” while many private plaintiffs need to show only negligence.
Fisherman’s complaint says he sent the required pre-suit notices and is seeking damages under state defamation law. How judges sort out the public-figure question and the applicable standard will be central issues as the case unfolds.
The lawsuit, filed March 13, 2026, in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, had not yet drawn public comment from the named Miami-area newsrooms, according to Miami New Times. Upcoming court filings, including any responses or motions to dismiss, will dictate how fast the case moves. For now, the complaint puts a spotlight on the uneasy intersection of rapid-fire coverage of headline-grabbing criminal trials and the legal blowback that can follow when someone in the story says the reporting went too far.
