You are here: / / AN UNFAVORABLE ANONYMOUS GOOGLE REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF ORTHODONTIST, ALTHOUGH...

AN UNFAVORABLE ANONYMOUS GOOGLE REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF ORTHODONTIST, ALTHOUGH IT INCLUDED BOTH FACT AND OPINION, WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD BY A READER TO BE PURE OPINION; THE REVIEW IS NOT ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an unfavorable Google review of plaintiff orthodontist by a former minor patient did not constitute actionable defamation:

Plaintiffs, an orthodontist and his professional corporation, allege that defendants — a former minor patient and that patient’s parents — defamed them in an unfavorable review posted on Google. Contrary to Supreme Court’s holding, we find that, although defendants’ Google review contains elements of both fact and opinion, it nevertheless is not actionable … , and it was not the motion court’s province to “sift[] through [the] communication for the purpose of isolating and identifying assertions of fact” … . Rather, the court should have considered the overall context in which the communication was made, an anonymous online review of plaintiff’s services … .

Here, a reasonable reader of defendants’ Google review would understand it to be pure opinion based on the context in which it was posted and its arguably “[l]oose, figurative, or hyperbolic” tone … . Furthermore, defendants’ Google review was posted anonymously online and, as we have recognized, “‘[R]eaders give less credence to allegedly defamatory remarks published on the Internet than to similar remarks made in other contexts'” … . DeRicco v Maidman, 2022 NY Slip Op 05921, First Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: An unfavorable, anonymous Google review of plaintiff orthodontist, although it included both fact and opinion, would be understood by readers to be pure opinion. The review therefore did not constitute actionable defamation.

 

You might also like
PURSUANT TO THE INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BELONGINGS AT THE HOSPITAL DID NOT TAINT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH NEAR DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED A MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION AND PROPOSED PLEADINGS (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Negligence on Part of Out-of-Possession Landlord with Limited Right of Reentry​
No Element of Intent in Constructive Possession of Contraband
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE APPLICABLE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROVISIONS, THE ALLEGATIONS DID STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE MORE PROTECTIVE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).
SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT).
NURSING SCHOOL BREACHED ITS IMPLIED CONTRACT WITH GRADUATED STUDENTS WHO WERE DEEMED INELIGIBLE FOR THE LICENSE EXAMINATION AND WERE NOT PERMITTED TO ENROLL IN A COLLEGE PROGRAM (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (IP’S) SON AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HOLDING A TESTIMONIAL HEARING, CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED AT TRIAL BUT REPRESENTED HIMSELF IN PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS;... WHETHER A PRIVATE COLLEGE ACTED IRRATIONALLY OR ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY...