You are here: / / THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE DO NOT APPLY AS A DEFENSE...
, ,

THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE DO NOT APPLY AS A DEFENSE TO THIS DEFAMATION ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ CRITICISM OF PLAINTIFF DOG-GROOMER POSTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, in a matter of first impression in the Second Department, determined the 2020 anti-SLAPP amendments, which expanded the scope of the statute to some defamatory statements made on social media, did not apply retroactively. Therefore the defendants in the defamation action (the Sproules) were not entitled to dismissal of the defamation complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The Sproules had left their puppy at plaintiff VIP’s dog-grooming facility. The dog allegedly had trouble breathing when the Sproules picked him up. They took him to a veterinarian who concluded the dog had water in his lungs. When the dog failed to improve on a ventilator he was put to sleep. Robert Sproule posted a description of the incident on Yelp and Google urging readers to avoid using VIP:

The 2020 amendments to the Civil Rights Law expanded the pool of parties that may raise anti-SLAPP defenses, counterclaims, and cross-claims in their actions, now including journalists, consumer advocates, survivors of sexual abuse, and others. The expansion will naturally lead to an increase in the occasions where anti-SLAPP statutes shall be litigated in the courts. In fact, some upswing is already noted in this developing area of law. * * *

… [T]he Sproules did not establish that this action constitutes an action involving public petition and participation under the anti-SLAPP statute in the form that existed when this action was commenced … . Thus, to decide whether the standards under CPLR 3211(g) and Civil Rights Law § 76-a(2) apply, we must address whether the 2020 amendments to the anti-SLAPP statute apply retroactively or prospectively…. * * *

We hold that the presumption of prospective application has not been overcome here. Indeed, the remedial nature of a statutory amendment, which is generally at play with many amendments, is not a basis, in and of itself, for ignoring the long-standing legal presumption that new enactments be prospective, particularly where there is no expressed provision that a new law be given retroactive effect … . VIP Pet Grooming Studio, Inc. v Sproule, 2024 NY Slip Op 00205, Second Dept 1-17-24

Practice Point: The 2020 amendments to the anti-SLAPP statute, which expanded the scope of the statute to include some critical social media posts, do not apply retroactively. Here defendants in a defamation action based on their social media posts alleging plaintiff dog-groomer’s incompetence and negligence could not take advantage of the 2020 amendments as a defense to the action.

You might also like
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).
Police Officer’s Observations Filtered Through His Experience Justified Stop and Frisk
PLAINTIFF’S STEPPING ON AN UNSECURED PLANK HE HAD JUST PLACED, RATHER THAN AN AVAILABLE SECURED PLANK, CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANTS’ PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED PURSUANT TO THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Where Attorney Is a Party to a Lawsuit, Attorney’s Submission of an Affirmation as Opposed to an Affidavit in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Is Not a Sufficient Ground for Dismissal of the Complaint
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Garbage on Sidewalk May Create Liability
HERE THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST FATHER WHO DID NOT LIVE WITH MOTHER AND THE CHILD; MOTHER WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE MOTHER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE POLICE HAD ENOUGH CAUSE FOR A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY BUT DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE... THE LABOR LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ALLOWING A WORKER TO...