I. Elements, Limitations, and Particularity
New York requires a false statement of fact, “of and concerning” the plaintiff, publication without privilege, fault, and either special damages or defamation per se. The limitations period is one year. A recent Northern District decision distilled federal pleading particularity for New York defamation: a complaint should identify the precise words, speaker, timing, medium and context, and third-party publication (user-supplied NDNY excerpt, Oct. 29, 2025).
II. Online Reviews: Verifiability and Presentation
Actionability turns on whether the challenged language asserts verifiable fact as opposed to protected opinion and whether presentation would lead a reasonable reader to credit it as such. In Mancilla & Fantone, LLP v. Liu, the First Department held that accusations a law firm “wrongfully kept [a] retainer,” authored fake positive reviews, and refused to file papers are statements “capable of being proven true or false.” The court emphasized that the content appeared on mimic, “review-like” domains modeled on the firm’s name, heightening the risk of confusion as to authorship. A verified complaint may function as an affidavit to evidence falsity and fault.
III. Context and the Internet: Credibility Signals
Context remains determinative. In Prometheum, Inc. v. Blumberg, the court, applying Sandals Resorts, assessed social-media statements within the culture of the forum and the tenor of the exchange. In that setting, charged terms were read as rhetorical opinion, not actionable fact.
“It is necessary to view allegedly defamatory statements published on the Internet within the broader framework on which they appear … Readers on social media sites do not necessarily attribute the same level of credence to the statements that they would accord to statements made in other contexts.” Prometheum, relying on Sandals Resorts
IV. Anti-SLAPP: Substantial-Basis Review and Early Merits Testing
Under Civil Rights Law § 76-a and CPLR 3211(g), once the defendant shows a claim involves public petition and participation, the burden shifts. The plaintiff must demonstrate a “substantial basis in law,” equated with the substantial-evidence standard and aligned with ordinary summary-judgment sufficiency. Courts therefore look beyond the face of the pleadings.
“Substantial basis … means ‘such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact,’ … equated with the ordinary summary judgment standard.” First Department, Black v. Ganieva
A. Heightened Burden, Not an Impenetrable Barrier
Recent decisions confirm that meritorious claims proceed notwithstanding anti-SLAPP. In Mancilla & Fantone, verified pleadings and exhibits sufficed to sustain defamation per se at the threshold. In Collectors Emporium v. Cernera, the court denied dismissal where YouTube videos and in-store statements accused a retailer of selling “fake” or “tampered” merchandise. The court held that claims about authenticity were verifiable facts, not insulated opinion; that the plaintiff’s defamation per se cause had a substantial basis in law; and that special damages must be itemized rather than asserted in round figures.
V. Pleading and Proof
Pleading particularity. Complaints should quote the language at issue, identify speaker, timing, forum, and publication to a third party. Federal courts applying New York law will test whether the claim rests on discrete, verifiable statements rather than generalized grievances.
Proof at the threshold. Under CPLR 3211(g), courts may consider affidavits; a verified complaint may serve as an affidavit for this purpose. Plaintiffs who substantiate falsity and fault typically clear the substantial-basis screen; defendants facing conclusory allegations often obtain dismissal and, where appropriate, fees.
VI. Strategic Considerations in Online-Review Disputes
1. Platform and presentation.
Recognized review sites and mimic domains are read differently. Mimicry that confuses authorship or suggests endorsement can convert rhetoric into actionable assertions.
2. Language and tenor.
In volatile public debates, courts construe charged terminology as rhetorical opinion—especially on social-media platforms that reward hyperbole.
3. Damages.
Outside per se categories, special damages require itemization. Boilerplate monetary claims are insufficient.
4. Fees.
Fee-shifting may follow if a claim lacks a substantial basis in law and fact.
VII. Conclusion
New York’s framework calibrates robust public discourse with protection against factually false reputational attacks. Anti-SLAPP imposes rigor but not futility: plaintiffs who plead with specificity and adduce competent proof proceed; unsupported claims do not.
Defamation and public-speech matters, particularly those governed by New York’s anti-SLAPP framework, demand legal judgment and precision. At Rapaport Law Firm, New York City attorneys Marc Rapaport and Meredith Miller represent individuals and businesses in complex defamation disputes throughout New York.
For additional information, see Rapaport Law Firm’s Defamation Practice.
Located in Manhattan where Greenwich Village and Chelsea intersect.
Call: 212-382-1600