What was the final ruling in Summer Zervos’s defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump?

1. What happened at the finish line — a dismissal, not a verdict

The procedural end of Zervos v. Trump was a voluntary dismissal filed in New York state court on November 12, 2021, in which the parties recorded that all claims were “dismissed and discontinued in their entirety” and that the dismissal was final; the filing also stated that neither side received any money ^{[1] [4]}. Multiple news outlets described the development as Zervos “ending,” “dropping,” or “settling” the defamation suit, emphasizing that the termination spared Trump from further litigation in that case, including a looming deposition ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

2. What the lawsuit had been about and how it reached court

Zervos had sued Trump in January 2017, alleging he defamed her by calling her and other women liars after she went public with an account that Trump kissed and groped her in 2007 when she sought career advice; the defamation claim alleged his denials harmed her reputation and business ^{[8] [1]}. The case survived multiple legal fights over whether a sitting president could be sued in state court — New York courts ultimately allowed the case to proceed, rejecting efforts to bar or freeze the lawsuit while Trump was in office ^{[4] [9] [10] [11]}.

3. Why Zervos ended the case — timing, counterclaims and depositions

The discontinuance came after years of procedural delays and days after Trump’s lawyers filed anti‑SLAPP counterclaims under New York’s law aimed at discouraging meritless suits meant to chill speech; media accounts noted a deposition of Trump had been scheduled, and the dismissal eliminated the need to question him under oath in that matter ^{[4] [3]}. Reporting indicates the case’s momentum shifted in the fall of 2021 as appeals and tactical filings concluded, setting a near‑term schedule that Zervos’s dismissal halted ^{[4] [7]}.

4. Competing spin: “no compensation” and “totally vindicated”

Following the filing, Trump’s team and outlets sympathetic to him framed the discontinuance as vindication: Trump declared himself “totally vindicated,” and his lawyer Alina Habba said Zervos had “no choice” because “the facts unearthed in this matter made it abundantly clear” he did nothing wrong, also asserting Trump paid no money ^{[3] [6]}. Zervos’s lawyers, by contrast, issued a statement saying she “no longer wishes to litigate” after five years, that she stands by her allegations, and that she “accepted no compensation,” signaling that the dismissal was a strategic end rather than an admission of falsehood ^{[2] [1]}.

5. Legal significance — closure without a merits ruling

Legally, the outcome is a dismissal by the plaintiff rather than a judicial determination on whether Trump’s statements were defamatory; courts did permit the suit to move forward previously, but the final filing left no court‑issued ruling resolving the factual or legal questions in Zervos’s complaint ^{[9] [10] [1]}. Thus, while the case is closed, the record contains no court finding either validating or rejecting the underlying sexual‑misconduct allegation or Trump’s denials; reporting does not show a judicial ruling on the merits at the time of dismissal ^{[1] [4]}.

6. What reporting made clear and what it did not

Contemporaneous coverage uniformly reported the dismissal, its finality, and that no money was paid, and it noted both parties’ competing statements about their reasons for ending litigation ^{[4] [1] [2]}. What the public record from those reports does not contain is a court judgment resolving truth or falsity of the allegations — that absence is material because it means the dismissal cannot be read as a legal vindication or condemnation by a judge ^{[1] [9]}.