You are here: / / THE TWITTER/X POSTS REFERRING TO PLAINTIFF AS A “STALKER” AND...
,

THE TWITTER/X POSTS REFERRING TO PLAINTIFF AS A “STALKER” AND STATING “THAT MAN HAS HARMED MULTIPLE WOMEN AND IS ABUSIVE AND MANIPULATIVE …” WERE DEEMED NONACTIONABLE OPINION AND THE DEFAMATION ACTION WAS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court properly found that the anti-SLAPP statute applied to this defamation, but the defamation complaint should have been dismissed because the Twitter/X posts constituted nonactionable opinion:

Plaintiff and defendant were PhD students at Columbia University … and were enrolled in the same seminar … . Plaintiff alleges that he was defamed by two Tweets defendant posted on Twitter (now X) … .. In response to seeing a picture of plaintiff with “a prominent scholar, attorney, abolitionist, and author,” defendant retweeted the post with a meme stating, “if I speak, Twitter will suspend me,” followed by a comment “I am triggered.” She then separately tweeted, without naming plaintiff or the other individual in the photograph, “when the abolitionist posts your stalker,” followed later by a comment to her Tweet “that man has harmed multiple women and is abusive and manipulative but congratulations on his dissertation, I guess.” …

… [Supreme Court] should … have granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint because plaintiff failed to show … that his claims had a substantial basis in law (Civil Rights Law §§ 70—a, 76—a; CPLR 3211[g] …). Defamation requires a false statement of fact and is judged from the perspective of an average, reasonable reader … . Context is critical for social media statements, where hyperbole and rhetorical exaggeration are common and are less likely to be interpreted literally … . Read in context, defendant’s tweets were emotionally charged reactions written in Twitter’s vernacular and accompanied by rhetoric, signaling that they were nonactionable opinions … .  Talbert v Tynes, 2026 NY Slip Op 01478, First Dept 3-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the way courts interpret “hyperbole and rhetorical exaggeration” in the context of a defamation action based upon Twitter/X posts.​

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGED RETALIATORY ACTIONS BY THE EMPLOYER TOOK PLACE YEARS AFTER PLAINTIFF STOPPED WORKING FOR THE EMPLOYER, THE COMPLAINT STATED VALID CAUSES OF ACTION FOR RETALIATORY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER HIRED TO BUILD A NEW STAIRCASE; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A PROTRUDING SCREW ON THE NEW STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE; THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, DID NOT SUPERVISE THE CONTRACTOR’S WORK, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT).
Even Though the Insured Was Faultless, the “Additional Insureds” Endorsement Was Triggered—The Endorsement Covered Acts or Omissions by the Insured Which “Caused” the Underlying Injury Without Any Requirement that the “Cause” Entail Negligence—Here the Insured Was Not Negligent, but the Injury Was “Caused” by Insured’s Non-Negligent Acts—Therefore the Additional Insureds Were Covered Under the Policy
Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine Applied
QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS ATTORNEY’S FEES DISPUTE WHETHER THERE WAS AN ORAL AGREEMENT TO RETURN THE UNEXHAUSTED PORTION OF THE RETAINER PAID BY PLAINTIFF AND WHETHER THE VOLUNTARY PAYMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
HOME DEPOT RENTED A TRUCK TO A MAN WHO DROVE THE TRUCK INTO A CROWD OF PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS; THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT; THE MOTION COURT IMPROPERLY TREATED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT ARE DEEMED TRUE FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS, HERE THOSE ALLEGATIONS WERE PROPERLY REFUTED BY AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS SUBMITTED BY HOME DEPOT (FIRST DEPT).
EACH TIME PLAINTIFF’S MARKETING DIRECTOR ENTERED A CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY IN WHICH THE DIRECTOR HAD AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST CONSTITUTED A SEPARATE WRONG UNDER THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HERE A “CERTIFICATE OF DELINQUENCY” WAS NEVER FILED FOR ANY VIOLATION... A STIPULATION TOLLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE...