Narrative Opinion Summary
In a defamation action initiated by a medical professional against two defendants due to negative online reviews, the Supreme Court of New York County dismissed the claim, determining that the statements in question were expressions of opinion rather than factual assertions. The defendants' reviews, which included disparaging remarks about the plaintiff and her medical spa, were deemed to be subjective opinions, as they were prefaced with phrases indicating personal views and were characterized by a tone that was loose, figurative, and hyperbolic. These elements suggested dissatisfaction and were thus non-actionable under defamation law. The appellate court upheld the dismissal, affirming that the complaint failed to state a cause of action for defamation. Moreover, the appellate court did not address the defendants' request for costs and attorneys' fees under New York's anti-SLAPP statute, as the defendants had not filed a notice of cross-appeal. The court's decision, entered on September 27, 2022, concluded with the rejection of the plaintiff's additional arguments as unpersuasive.
Legal Issues Addressed
Anti-SLAPP Law and Cross-Appeal Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court did not consider the defendants' request for costs and attorneys' fees under the anti-SLAPP statute due to the absence of a cross-appeal notice.
Reasoning: The appellate court also noted that the defendants’ request for costs and attorneys' fees under New York's anti-SLAPP law was not considered, as they did not file a notice of cross-appeal.
Defamation and Opinionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that statements made in online reviews were expressions of opinion rather than factual assertions, thus not actionable as defamation.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court of New York County granted the defendants' pre-answer motion to dismiss the defamation claim, ruling that the statements were expressions of opinion rather than factual assertions.
Hyperbolic and Figurative Language in Defamationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the overall tone of the statements was loose, figurative, and hyperbolic, indicating dissatisfaction rather than actionable defamation.
Reasoning: The court noted that while the reviews mixed opinion with fact, the overall tone was loose, figurative, and hyperbolic, which indicated dissatisfaction rather than actionable defamation.