You are here: / / TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS...
,

TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined two statements alleged by the plaintiffs to have been defamatory were nonactionable opinion (other defamatory statements alleged in the complaint properly survived the motion to dismiss). The court noted that plaintiffs have no burden to prove the allegations in a complaint in response to a motion to dismiss, and further found that the Communications Decency Act did not shield the defendants from liability:

Here, the allegedly defamatory statements set forth in paragraphs 53 and 55 of the complaint—which asserted, among other things, that [the defendant president of the cooperative] was “attempting insult of American laws & freedom” and was attempting to “destroy Trump Village 4 and sell our buildings to the highest bidder after we are bankrupt”—constituted nonactionable expressions of opinion. The statements … were not easily understandable, were largely incapable of being proven true or false, and, in context, signaled to the average reader that the statements were opinion, not fact. …

We reject the defendants’ contention that the allegations of defamation fail to state a cause of action because their statements were protected by qualified privileges, and insufficient facts were alleged to show that they spoke with malice necessary to defeat those privileges … . Since “the burden does not shift to the nonmoving party on a motion made pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a plaintiff has no obligation to show evidentiary facts to support [his or her] allegations of malice on [such] a motion'” … . Here, to the extent that the defendants’ statements may be shielded by any qualified privileges, the allegations of malice that were set forth in the complaint and in an affidavit submitted by [the cooperative president] preclude dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants for failure to state a cause of action ,,, ,

We agree with the Supreme Court that the Communications Decency Act (47 USC § 230) did not warrant dismissal of the complaint at this juncture. A defendant is “immune from state law liability if (1) it is a provider or user of an interactive computer service’; (2) the complaint seeks to hold the defendant liable as a publisher or speaker’; and (3) the action is based on information provided by another information content provider'” … . “[I]f a defendant service provider is itself the content provider,’ it is not shielded from liability” … . Here, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants authored the defamatory statements, which would mean that the defendants were content providers within the meaning of the statute … . Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc. v Bezvoleva, 2018 NY Slip Op 03389, Second Dept 5-9-18

​DEFAMATION (TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT))/OPINION (DEFAMATION, TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT))/COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (DEFAMATION, TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT ENTER HIS GUILTY PLEA VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY; HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS PROPERLY DENIED; STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED AN INADQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
Affidavits and Text Messages Do Not Constitute “Documentary Evidence” In the Context of a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1)
JUDGE SHOULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, HAVE RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SERVICE BY MAIL WHICH WERE NOT RAISED OR ADDRESSED BY THE PARTIES; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR WHICH LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT SOUGHT, WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). ​
MAKESHIFT TABLE SAW, MADE FROM A PORTABLE SAW, SUBJECT TO INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING GUARDS ON TABLE SAWS, UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BASED ON GROUNDS IDENTICAL TO A TIMELY MOTION BROUGHT BY ANOTHER PARTY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.
EVEN THOUGH THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY WAS NOT REBUTTED WITH RESPECT TO MOTHER’S HUSBAND IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL UNDER A ‘BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD’ ANALYSIS TO ADJUDICATE THE RESPONDENT, WITH WHOM A CHILD-PARENT BOND HAD DEVELOPED, THE FATHER (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS, INCLUDING PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Promissory Note Reflecting a Loan to a Limited Liability Company Was Criminally Usurious As Well As Void Under the General Obligations Law—Provision Purporting to Reduce the Interest Rate to a Non-Usurious Rate If the Original Rate Were Found to be Usurious Did Not Save the Note

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL... INMATE PETITIONER HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL A PRISON OFFICER AS A WITNESS TO DETERMINE...