Key Points

  • The Second Department affirmed dismissal under CPLR 3211 of a defamation suit by William D. Spain, Jr., against Richard Williams, Sr., and Ginny Nacerino over a June 23, 2024, email promoting a candidate in a Putnam County primary.
  • The court held that an email sent on behalf of a campaign committee criticizing the plaintiff's alleged circulation of false statements about the candidate involved an issue of public interest, so the suit was an action involving public petition and participation under Civil Rights Law section 76-a.
  • The challenged statement was nonactionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole given the heated election context and the email's tone, the complaint failed to make the rigorous showing required for defamation by implication, and the complaint did not allege to whom the email was published.
  • Because the plaintiff failed to show a substantial basis in law, the court affirmed Civil Rights Law section 70-a awards of $5,410.25 to Williams and $17,380 to Nacerino.
  • The court declined to consider Williams's request for affirmative relief because he did not appeal.

A New York appeals court on Wednesday upheld the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit over an email circulated during a 2024 Putnam County primary campaign, and it let stand orders awarding the two people who were sued a combined $22,790.25 in costs and attorneys' fees.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, held in an unsigned decision and order that the email's statement about the plaintiff, William D. Spain, Jr., was opinion or rhetorical hyperbole that could not be proven true or false. Justices Colleen D. Duffy, the presiding justice, Barry E. Warhit, Lourdes M. Ventura and Lisa S. Ottley joined the decision. The panel affirmed two orders of Justice Maria G. Rosa of the state Supreme Court in Dutchess County, which dismissed the claims against Richard Williams, Sr., and Ginny Nacerino and awarded $5,410.25 to Williams and $17,380 to Nacerino.

The ruling applies New York's anti-SLAPP statute, a law aimed at strategic lawsuits against public participation, to campaign speech. Under amendments that took effect in 2020, a covered suit includes one based on speech in connection with an issue of public interest, and a companion provision directs courts to award costs and fees when such a suit lacks a substantial basis in fact and law. The panel held that an email criticizing a person's conduct during a local election campaign qualifies, and that the fee awards followed once Spain could not show his claims had a substantial basis in law.

Spain filed the suit in December 2024 against Williams, Nacerino, who was sued as "Ginny Doe," and other defendants who were not part of the appeal. The complaint alleged that the defendants defamed him in an email dated June 23, 2024, which was circulated to promote a candidate in a Putnam County primary election. According to the complaint, the email was sent on behalf of a committee to elect a candidate to a Putnam County public office, and it criticized Spain's alleged circulation of false statements about that candidate. The decision does not quote the email or name the candidate or the office.

Williams and Nacerino each moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211 and sought costs and fees under Civil Rights Law section 70-a, the anti-SLAPP statute's fee provision. Rosa granted the motions in an order dated April 3, 2025. After the defendants filed second motions for fees, Rosa set the amounts in an order dated July 21, 2025. Spain appealed both orders.

The panel began with the statute's definition of a covered suit. Citing Gottwald v Sebert, the court wrote that such an action is, among other things, one "based upon (1) any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; or (2) any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest." The statute also provides that "public interest" "shall be construed broadly, and shall mean any subject other than a purely private matter."

Spain had argued that his suit did not involve public petition and participation, the statute's term for a covered suit. The panel rejected that argument. It held that the defendants had shown the claims arose in connection with an issue of public interest, which the court described as "matters of political concern to the community." That showing shifted the burden to Spain to demonstrate that his claims had a "substantial basis in law."

Spain could not meet that burden, the court held, because the challenged statement was not a statement of fact. The panel explained that only factual statements can be proven false and so support a defamation claim. Under that rule, the court wrote, "an expression of pure opinion is not actionable, no matter how vituperative or unreasonable it may be."

The panel then applied that rule to the June 2024 email. "Given the context of the alleged defamatory statement—a heated election campaign—and the June 2024 email's tone, reasonable readers would have concluded" that they were reading an opinion about Spain rather than a fact, the court wrote.

The court also rejected Spain's contention that the email implied defamatory facts. His complaint, the panel held, failed to "make a rigorous showing that the language of the communication as a whole can be reasonably read both to impart a defamatory inference and to affirmatively suggest that the author intended or endorsed that inference." The panel identified a separate defect in the complaint, which did not allege to whom the email had been sent. Publication to a third party is an element of defamation under the standard the court recited.

The same reasoning sustained the fee awards. Under Section 70-a, the panel wrote, costs and fees "shall be awarded" upon a showing that a covered suit "was commenced or continued without a substantial basis in fact and law." The panel held that the defendants had established that Spain's suit was a covered action and that Spain, in opposition, "failed to show that his causes of action had a substantial basis in law."

Williams had also asked the appeals court for affirmative relief, which the decision does not describe. The panel declined to consider the request, writing that "a nonappealing party is not entitled to such relief." Williams had not filed his own appeal. The court said the parties' remaining contentions either lacked merit or did not need to be reached.

Spain, of the firm Spain & Spain, P.C., represented himself on the appeal. Williams was represented by Craig T. Bumgarner.

The decision leaves in place the dismissal of the claims against Williams and Nacerino and both fee awards. The panel also awarded the two defendants one bill of costs on the appeal. The decision, reported as 2026 NY Slip Op 06160, is marked uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.