Papers NumberedNotice of Motion to Dismiss (1)Affirmation in Opposition (2)Affirmation in Reply (3)DECISION/ORDER Upon the foregoing Papers, the decision and order on this motion is as follows:Defendants, Risfa Islam, Thouhid R. Khan, and Tayef Ahmed’s motion to dismiss plaintiff, Mizanur Choudhury’s complaint against them for defamation is granted.Plaintiff commenced this action for defamation on July 25, 2018 for statements allegedly made by the defendants online and for alleged defamatory behavior by the defendants at the plaintiff’s campaign events.Pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) §3016(a), the particular words that are complained of as libel and/or slander, which constitutes defamation, must be specified in the pleadings. Further, defamatory statements must be those alleging facts and not opinions. The Court analyzes statements in a three prong test: “(1) whether the specific language has a precise meaning that is readily understood, (2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false, and (3) whether the context in which the statement appears signals to readers that the statement is likely to be opinion, not fact.” See Silverman v. Daily News, L.P., 129 A.D.3d 1054 (2nd Dept. 2015). To be successful in a defamation action that concerns a public figure, a plaintiff must prove that the statements were made with “actual malice”, with either knowledge that the statements are false or with reckless disregard for the truth. See Huggins v. Moore, 94 N.Y.2d 296 (N.Y. 1999). Public figures include persons who “have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” See Huggins supra. (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 US 323 (1974)).Here, plaintiff’s run for Congress puts him in the public eye and concern as a public figure. The plaintiff claims that Defendants Islam, Khan and Tayef Ahmed were allegedly involved with running a Facebook page called “No Fruadsters in Congress.” Plaintiff alleges that through this page, all named defendants followed plaintiff’s public Facebook page and reviewed plaintiff’s newspaper clippings, events, posts shared on his page and comments left by his supporters. In plaintiff’s summons and complaint, he does not specify the exact libelous or slanderous words that defendants Islam, Khan or Tayef Ahmed allegedly wrote on the Facebook page and without the specific words, this Court cannot analyze whether the statements were malicious. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Khan made the following remark at plaintiff’s campaign event, “Isn’t his car silver? I think someone hit his car.” The Court does not find that this statement on its face is libelous, slanderous, or show actual malice. See Silverman supra.Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint is granted as to defendants Risfa Islam, Thouhid R. Khan and Tayef Ahmed.This is the decision and order of this Court.Dated: November 21, 2018
