You are here: / / CALLING PLAINTIFF A PEDOPHILE, THREATENING TO HAVE PLAINTIFF ARRESTED,...

CALLING PLAINTIFF A PEDOPHILE, THREATENING TO HAVE PLAINTIFF ARRESTED, AND THE STATEMENT “YOU’RE TAKING PICTURES OF 10-YEAR-OLD KIDS” CONSTITUTED NONACTIONABLE RHETORICAL OPINION, NOT DEFAMATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this defamation action should have been granted. The court found that the statements accusing plaintiff of being a pedophile were expressions of opinion, not assertions of fact:

…[T]he employee [defendant] accused plaintiff of either “playing politics or [being] a fucking pedophile.” After plaintiff denied playing politics, the employee responded “Then you’re a fucking pedophile” and stated, “I’m going to Town right now and fucking see if I can get you arrested for being a fucking pedophile. You’re taking pictures of 10-year-old kids, are you crazy or what?” * * *

“Expressions of opinion, as opposed to assertions of fact, are deemed privileged and, no matter how offensive, cannot be the subject of an action for defamation” ,,, .. “A pure opinion may take one of two forms. It may be a statement of opinion which is accompanied by a recitation of the facts upon which it is based, or it may be [a]n opinion not accompanied by such a factual recitation so long as it does not imply that it is based upon undisclosed facts” … . “Whether a particular statement constitutes fact or opinion is a question of law” … . “The dispositive inquiry . . . is whether a reasonable [listener] could have concluded that [the statements were] conveying facts about the plaintiff” … .* * *

“Rather than sifting through a communication for the purpose of isolating and identifying assertions of fact, the court should look to the over-all context in which the assertions were made and determine on that basis whether the reasonable [listener] would have believed that the challenged statements were conveying facts about the . . . plaintiff” … . Indeed, the court should consider “the circumstances and . . . the broader social context (i.e., the factual background leading to the [statement])” to determine whether the “message would be taken by the ordinary person not literally, but figuratively” … , particularly where an “audience may anticipate [the use] of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole” … . Bieber v Town of Hamburg, 2026 NY Slip Op 04605, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the difference between statements which constitute “rhetorical opinion” and statements which constitute “defamation.”

 

You might also like
Trial Court Should Not Have Precluded Expert Testimony Based Upon Failure to Make Timely Disclosures— Rather, the Trial Should Have Been Adjourned
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUSPENDED FATHER’S VISITATION WITHOUT MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THOSE ASPECTS OF THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS ISSUE WAS NOT ABANDONED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF LANDLORD HAD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW FOR AN ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LEASE BY THE TENANT; PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED LOSS OF GOODWILL WAS NOT APPLICABLE; THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVORED THE TENANT; THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
In Sex-Offense Trial, Discovery of the Victim’s Psychiatric Records Properly Denied and Cross-Examination About Psychiatric History Properly Prohibited
Police Did Not Demonstrate They Had a “Founded Suspicion Criminality Was Afoot” Before Asking For and Receiving Defendant’s Permission to Search His Car
Pedigree Question “Where Do You Reside,” Under the Circumstances, Was Designed to Elicit an Incriminating Response, the Answer, Therefore, Should Have Been Suppressed; New Trial on Possessory Counts Ordered
THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S DEFAMATION COMPLAINT (FOURTH 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

DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS MADE IN AN ACTION IN WHICH A DEFAULT JUDGMENT... THE DEFENSE SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED THE RELIABILITY OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF...