PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY’S DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST A FORMER CLIENT WHO POSTED A NEGATIVE REVIEW WAS A “STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP);” PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SUIT HAD A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN LAW; THE POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determines plaintiff-attorney’s defamation action against a former client who posted a negative review on the attorney’s website was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Plaintiff did not demonstrate the defamation action had a substantial basis in law because the posted review was nonactionable opinion:

… [T]he defendant satisfied her initial burden of establishing that this is an action involving public petition and participation, since it involves a claim based upon a communication in a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest [see Civil Rights Law 76-a]. * * *

The elements of a cause of action alleging defamation are (1) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (2) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (3) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (4) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se … . “Since falsity is a necessary element of a defamation cause of action and only facts are capable of being proven false, it follows that only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action” … . Thus, an expression of pure opinion is not actionable, no matter how vituperative or unreasonable it may be … . Shapiro v Kushnick-Carr, 2026 NY Slip Op 05822, Second Dept 10-7-26

Practice Point: Here an attorney’s defamation action against a former client who posted a negative review was deemed a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) which was dismissed because it did not have a “substantial basis in law” (the post was nonactionable opinion).