3092. HEZI TORATI plf-res, v. DANIEL HODAK, def-ap, JOHN DOE 1-100 def — Ganfer & Shore LLP, New York (Ira Brad Matetsky of counsel), for ap — Edelstein & Grossman, New York (Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered September 22, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant Hodak’s motion to dismiss the causes of action for libel and libel per se as against him pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (1) and (7), unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion except as to the claims based on the Facebook message, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The complaint alleges defamation stemming from negative comments anonymously posted by defendant on various consumer review websites or shared via Facebook message. With the exception of the Facebook message (which contains statements that are largely factual in nature), the challenged statements are not actionable, because they are expressions of opinion (see Mann v. Abel, 10 NY3d 271, 276 [2008], cert denied 555 US 117 [2009]). While the Internet reviews contain elements of both fact and opinion, when viewed in context, they suggest to a reasonable reader that the author was merely expressing his opinion based on a negative business interaction with plaintiffs (see id.; Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 68 NY2d 283, 294 [1986]). The communications have a “[l]oose, figurative or hyperbolic” tone (see Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34, 38 [1st Dept 1999]), referring to plaintiff as a “bad apple,” “incompetent and dishonest,” and a “disastrous businessman,” from whom consumers should “[s]tay far away.” Moreover, they were posted anonymously online. As this Court has recognized, “[R]eaders give less credence to allegedly defamatory remarks published on the Internet than to similar remarks made in other contexts” (Sandals Resorts Intl. Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 86 AD3d 32, 44 [1st Dept 2011]).
