Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department decision addresses a defendant's appeal from an order denying his motion to dismiss a defamation action under New York's anti-SLAPP statute. The court modified the lower court's order to dismiss time-barred email claims and grant absolute privilege to statements republished in a state human rights department complaint. However, it affirmed the denial of dismissal regarding a LinkedIn post, finding that the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial basis in law by showing the statements were actionable mixed opinions rather than pure opinion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the LinkedIn post is protected as a public petition/action under Civil Rights Law § 76‑a and therefore subject to dismissal under CPLR 3211(a).
- Whether the plaintiff’s defamation claims based on the LinkedIn post have a substantial basis in law, precluding an award of attorney’s fees.
Holdings
- The anti‑SLAPP motion is granted; the defamation claims based on the LinkedIn post are dismissed.
- Attorney’s fees and costs are not awarded because the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial basis in law for the claims.
Key quotations
“"The elements of a cause of action for defamation are (a) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (b) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (c) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (d) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se" (Greenberg v. Spitzer, 155 AD3d 27, 41).” (at *2)
“"A pure opinion may take one of two forms. It may be a statement of opinion which is accompanied by a recitation of the facts upon which it is based, or it may be an opinion not accompanied by such a factual recitation so long as it does not imply that it is based upon undisclosed facts" (Kasavana v. Vela, 172 AD3d at 1045).” (at *3)
Factual background
John Stiloski and Stiloski's Automotive Corp. sued Robert Wingate for defamation based on five communications, including a LinkedIn post that called Stiloski a "Tarrytown extremist who supports neo‑Nazi causes." The defendant moved to dismiss the action as a SLAPP suit under CPLR 3211(a).
Procedural history
The trial court denied the defendant's anti‑SLAPP motion and fee award. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department.