206 A.D.3d 26
N.Y. App. Div.2022Background:
- Plaintiff Aristocrat Plastic Surgery P.C. (Dr. Kevin Tehrani) performed plastic surgery on defendant Paige Silva.
- Silva posted negative reviews about the surgery/practice on RealSelf and Yelp, aimed at informing potential patients.
- Plaintiffs sued Silva for defamation, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort.
- Silva moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) and Civil Rights Law § 76-a (anti‑SLAPP), and sought attorneys' fees and damages under Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a and 76-a.
- Supreme Court dismissed the complaint but denied Silva's request for fees and punitive damages; Silva appealed.
- The Appellate Division applied the 2020 amendments to New York’s anti‑SLAPP law (broadening “public interest”) and held Silva’s online reviews implicated a matter of public interest, reinstating her claim for fees and damages under §§ 70-a and 76-a.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Silva's online reviews were "in connection with an issue of public interest" under § 76-a | Reviews concern a private dispute about Silva's medical care, not public interest | Reviews on public forums about medical treatment/public business are matters of public interest | Held: Reviews qualify as public‑interest communications under § 76-a(1)(d) |
| Whether Silva is entitled to attorneys' fees and damages under §§ 70-a and 76-a | This is not a SLAPP; fees/damages inappropriate | Because the posts are protected public‑interest speech, Silva may seek mandatory fees/damages under amended law | Held: Reinstated Silva's request for attorneys' fees and damages under §§ 70-a and 76-a |
| Whether alleged falsity/defamation bars anti‑SLAPP protection | Plaintiffs: defamatory falsehoods remove protection | Defendant: protection applies to public‑forum consumer reviews; falsity alone doesn't defeat anti‑SLAPP classification at this stage | Held: Court rejected plaintiffs' contention that alleged falsity precluded anti‑SLAPP relief for these posts |
| Proper scope of "public interest" after 2020 amendments | Should not be interpreted so broadly as to cover every private dispute | Should be construed broadly to include subjects other than "purely private" matters, including business and medical practice reviews | Held: Adopted broad interpretation; "public interest" means any subject other than a purely private matter |
Key Cases Cited
- 600 W. 115th St. Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 80 N.Y.2d 130 (statutory background for anti‑SLAPP protection)
- Huggins v. Moore, 94 N.Y.2d 296 (content, form, and context govern public‑concern inquiry)
- Albert v. Loksen, 239 F.3d 256 (broad view of matters of public concern)
- Mirza v. Amar, 513 F. Supp. 3d 292 (E.D.N.Y.) (online reviews of a medical practice qualify as public concern)
- Coleman v. Grand, 523 F. Supp. 3d 244 (E.D.N.Y.) (amended § 76‑a broadly construed to cover speech touching on public issues)
- Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP v. Lahiji, 40 Cal. App. 5th 882 (Cal. Ct. App.) (negative online reviews treated as protected public‑interest speech)