Defendant Accused Village Attorney of Making Misrepresentation and Extortion Subject to Defamation Claim—Defendant Believed Plaintiff Was Negotiating To Purchase Property on Behalf of a Village When In Fact Plaintiff Was Purchasing Property for His Own LLC—Defendant Was Not Entitled To Protection from "Qualified Privilege"—No "Common Interest"—Village Attorney Was Not a "Public Figure"—Statements Did Not Involve Matter of Public Concern Since Email Was Directed "Only to a Limited, Private Audience"—Email Statements Were Not Merely "Non-Actionable Opinion" But Constituted "a Mixed Opinion"—Defendant Did Not Demonstrate as Matter of Law That Statements Were "Substantially True" Were Not "Defamatory Per Se"

The plaintiff in the subject case is the attorney for a village (Village). He also served on the board of a non-profit "dedicated to improving the Village community." The defendant is a "local property developer."

The defendant had recently purchased, at a tax sale, certain property which was "comprised of a large cement block structure that had once contained a bowling alley, and a small brick structure that had once contained an apartment and a bar (property)."