Hal Rubin v. Harleen Kahlon
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Defamation from an anonymous social media post and application of New York’s Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) statute, including mandatory fee-shifting for prevailing defendants.
Dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action] and denied attorneys’ fees under Civil Rights Law § 70-a [mandates an award of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing defendant in an anti-SLAPP action].
The denial of attorneys’ fees and costs to defendant; the order was modified to award fees and remanded to determine the amount.
The Facebook post was not 'of and concerning' plaintiff as a matter of law; the case falls within the anti-SLAPP statute—CPLR 3211(g) [special anti-SLAPP motion standard] and Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a [mandatory fee award to prevailing defendant] and 76-a [expands anti-SLAPP protections to speech on matters of public interest]—because the post addressed an issue of public interest. A dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) sufficed to trigger the mandatory fee award under § 70-a(1)(a).
Background
An anonymous post in a private Facebook group, 'Moms of the Upper East Side (UES),' described an incident involving an unnamed doorman and an unnamed child at a building located at 68th Street and Second Avenue. That corner includes three large buildings with numerous doormen. Nothing in the post identified plaintiff by name, job site, or other unique details. Plaintiff alleged colleagues and his employer took the post to be about him, but he identified no specific individuals who made that connection. The record also showed he was suspended before the post was made, and his termination notice cited only his own conduct, not the post.
Lower Court Decision
The motion court granted defendant’s CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, holding the post was not 'of and concerning' plaintiff because a typical reader of the private Facebook group without special knowledge could not identify him from the anonymous description. The court denied defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees under Civil Rights Law § 70-a.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the 'of and concerning' element failed as a matter of law, but modified to grant defendant attorneys’ fees and costs under Civil Rights Law § 70-a(1)(a), holding that the action falls within the anti-SLAPP statute and that a CPLR 3211(a)(7) dismissal is sufficient to trigger the mandatory fee award. The case was remanded to determine the amount of fees and costs.
Legal Significance
The decision clarifies that anonymous, non-specific posts in private community groups that do not permit an ordinary reader to identify the plaintiff will not satisfy the 'of and concerning' element of defamation. It also reinforces that, in matters of public interest, a defendant who prevails on a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion in an anti-SLAPP case is entitled to a mandatory award of attorneys’ fees and costs under Civil Rights Law § 70-a(1)(a).
Vague, anonymous online allegations that do not identify a plaintiff are not actionable as defamation, and when such claims target speech on matters of public interest, New York’s anti-SLAPP law requires fee-shifting in favor of the prevailing defendant.