=================================================================

Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or e

publ i cat i on i n t he New Yor k Repor t s.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No. 145
Rober t Davi s, et al . ,
Appel l ant s,
v.
J ames Boehei m, et al . ,
Respondent s.
Mar i ann Mei er Wang, f or appel l ant s.
Hel en V. Cant wel l , f or r espondent s.
RI VERA, J . :
On t hi s appeal f r oma pr e- answer di smi ssal of
pl ai nt i f f s' def amat i on act i on, we concl ude t hat t he chal l enged
st at ement s ar e r easonabl y suscept i bl e of a def amat or y
connot at i on, and not ot her wi se pr i vi l eged, nonact i onabl e " pur e
- 1 -
- 2 - No. 145
opi ni on. " Ther ef or e, we r ever se t he Appel l at e Di vi si on.
I .
Pl ai nt i f f s Rober t Davi s and hi s st ep- br ot her Mi chael
Lang sued def endant s Syr acuse Uni ver si t y and J ames Boehei m, t he
Uni ver si t y' s head basket bal l coach, f or def amat i on based on
st at ement s by Boehei mmade i n r esponse t o Davi s and Lang' s
al l egat i ons of sexual mol est at i on by Ber ni e Fi ne, Boehei m' s l ong-
t i me f r i end and t he t eam' s associ at e coach. Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai med
t hat Fi ne used hi s posi t i on and aut hor i t y wi t hi n t he Uni ver si t y' s
basket bal l pr ogr amt o gai n access t o and cont r ol over Davi s and
Lang f or pur poses of sexual l y mol est i ng t hem.
Accor di ng t o pl ai nt i f f s, f r omt he t i me Davi s and Lang
wer e chi l dr en i n t he 1980s, Fi ne l ur ed t hemwi t h oppor t uni t i es t o
at t end t he games and assi st t he t eamas " bal l boys. " For year s
t he sexual abuse cont i nued, on and of f campus, on t eamt r i ps away
f r omt he Uni ver si t y, i n Fi ne' s car and i n hi s home. Davi s
al l eged t hat i n hi s case t he abuse cont i nued f or al most t wo
decades, commenci ng when he was about 11 year s ol d. Pl ai nt i f f s
f ur t her al l eged t hat Boehei mhad obser ved Davi s wi t h Fi ne at
pr act i ces, at games, and on t r i ps wi t h t he t eam, i ncl udi ng once
i n Fi ne' s hot el r oomdur i ng t he 1987 NCAA Fi nal Four .
The pl ai nt i f f s di d not make t hei r cl ai ms known or
publ i c unt i l t hey wer e adul t s, year s af t er t he abuse ended. I n
2002, Davi s went t o t he Syr acuse Pol i ce Depar t ment , but t he
- 2 -
- 3 - No. 145
Depar t ment f ai l ed t o i nvest i gat e or t ake any act i on on hi s
al l egat i ons, i nf or mi ng hi mt hat t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons f or
chi l d sexual abuse had expi r ed. Davi s deci ded t o go t o t he
medi a, and r epor t ed t he abuse t o t he Syr acuse Post - St andar d, a
dai l y newspaper ser vi ci ng t he Syr acuse ar ea, and ESPN, a nat i onal
spor t s t el evi si on channel . I n 2003, ESPN i nt er vi ewed Davi s but
f ai l ed t o publ i ci ze hi s al l egat i ons.
I n Sept ember 2005, Davi s r epor t ed t he sexual abuse t o
t he Uni ver si t y' s new Chancel l or . At t he Uni ver si t y' s r equest ,
Davi s met wi t h a Uni ver si t y l awyer and pr ovi ded names of
i ndi vi dual s who Davi s cl ai med coul d cor r obor at e hi s al l egat i ons
of abuse. A f ew mont hs l at er t he Uni ver si t y i nf or med Davi s by
l et t er t hat i t had concl uded hi s al l egat i ons wer e unf ounded and
had cl osed t he mat t er .
Pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms became publ i c i n 2011 af t er
unr el at ed al l egat i ons by ot her vi ct i ms of sexual abuse sur f aced
agai nst anot her coach at anot her wel l known uni ver si t y. I n t hat
year , si mi l ar cl ai ms sur f aced of sexual abuse of mul t i pl e vi ct i ms
by f or mer Penn St at e Uni ver si t y assi st ant f oot bal l coach J er r y
Sandusky. As wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms agai nst Fi ne, t he Penn
St at e sexual abuse scandal i nvol ved al l egat i ons t hat Sandusky had
used t he Uni ver si t y' s f oot bal l pr ogr ami n or der t o gai n access t o
under age vi ct i ms. Penn St at e' s head f oot bal l coach, J oe Pat er no,
was al l eged t o have cover ed up t he abuse.
The Penn St at e scandal r enewed nat i onal and l ocal medi a
- 3 -
- 4 - No. 145
i nt er est i n pl ai nt i f f s' al l egat i ons. Wi t hi n t wo weeks of t he
i ni t i al br eaki ng news cover age of t he Penn St at e st or y, and as
t he medi a f ocus on t he Penn St at e al l egat i ons cont i nued, ESPN
i ssued a news r epor t about t he al l egat i ons agai nst Fi ne. The
st or y al so r el ayed Davi s' st at ement t hat Boehei msaw Davi s l yi ng
on Fi ne' s hot el r oombed dur i ng t he 1987 NCAA Fi nal Four .
The day af t er t he ESPN st or y, t he Uni ver si t y r el eased a
st at ement i n whi ch i t descr i bed i t s 2005 f our - mont h i nvest i gat i on
i nt o Davi s' al l egat i ons. The Uni ver si t y st at ed t hat i t had
i nt er vi ewed per sons named by Davi s, but was unabl e t o cor r obor at e
t he cl ai ms. The Uni ver si t y f ur t her st at ed t hat i t woul d have
act ed had i t f ound any evi dence or cor r obor at i on of t he
al l egat i ons i n 2005.
The same day t he ESPN st or y br oke, and bef or e t he
Uni ver si t y' s st at ement went publ i c, Boehei mi ssued a one-
par agr aph st at ement , r el eased by t he Syr acuse Uni ver si t y news
ser vi ce, i n whi ch he t oo announced t hat t he Uni ver si t y had
i nvest i gat ed t he al l egat i ons and had concl uded t hey wer e
unf ounded. Boehei mf ur t her decl ar ed t hat " Ber ni e [ Fi ne] has my
f ul l suppor t , " and t hat he had known Fi ne f or over 40 year s and
had " never seen or wi t nessed anyt hi ng t o suggest t hat [ Fi ne]
woul d be i nvol ved i n any of t he act i vi t i es al l eged. " Boehei m
st at ed t hat i f he had " seen or suspect ed anyt hi ng, I woul d have
t aken act i on. "
Boehei mmade sever al ot her st at ement s t o r epor t er s,
- 4 -
- 5 - No. 145
whi ch wer e quot ed i n t he pr i nt and onl i ne ver si ons of t he New
Yor k Ti mes, on t he Syr acuse Post St andar d' s websi t e Syr acuse. com,
on Spor t i ngNews. com, and on ESPN. com. I n t hese st at ement s,
Boehei mr easser t ed hi s suppor t f or Fi ne and hi s deni al of any
knowl edge of t he cl ai med event s as descr i bed by Davi s. He al so
cal l ed Davi s and Lang l i ar s, and st at ed t hat t hei r al l egat i ons
wer e f i nanci al l y mot i vat ed.
Davi s and Lang commenced t hi s act i on agai nst Boehei m
and t he Uni ver si t y f or def amat i on, cl ai mi ng t hat sever al of
Boehei m' s st at ement s t o ESPN, t he Post - St andar d, and t he New Yor k
Ti mes, wer e f al se and def amat or y, and had caused t hemeconomi c,
emot i onal and r eput at i onal har m. The Uni ver si t y and Boehei mf i l ed
a mot i on t o di smi ss pur suant t o CPLR 3211 ( a) ( 7) , on t he gr ounds
t hat t he st at ement s wer e not def amat or y as a mat t er of l aw
because t hey const i t ut ed nonact i onabl e opi ni on, not f act s.
Supr eme Cour t gr ant ed t he mot i on concl udi ng t hat a r easonabl e
r eader woul d concl ude t hat Boehei m' s st at ement s wer e " a bi ased
and per sonal opi ni on on t he accusat i ons agai nst Ber ni e Fi ne, not
f act . "
The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med i n a spl i t 3- 2
deci si on. The maj or i t y concl uded t hat al t hough Boehei m' s
st at ement s t hat Davi s f abr i cat ed al l egat i ons and was mot i vat ed by
f i nanci al gai n had cer t ai n f act ual el ement s, based on " t he
cont ext of t he communi cat i on as a whol e, as wel l as i t s t one and
appar ent pur pose, " and " t he over - al l cont ext i n whi ch t he
- 5 -
- 6 - No. 145
asser t i ons wer e made, " a r easonabl e r eader woul d have bel i eved
t hat t he chal l enged st at ement s wer e conveyi ng opi ni on and not
f act s ( Davi s v Boehei m, 110 AD3d 1431, 1433 [ 4t h Dept 2013] ) .
The di ssent concl uded t hat di smi ssal on a pr e- answer mot i on t o
di smi ss was er r or because Boehei m' s st at ement s t hat Davi s was
l yi ng about Fi ne t o get money, and t hat he had done so i n t he
past , const i t ut ed opi ni on t hat i mpl i es a basi s i n f act s not
di scl osed t o t he r eader or l i st ener , and t hus const i t ut ed
act i onabl e " mi xed opi ni on. "
Davi s and Lang cont end t hat t he Appel l at e Di vi si on
er r ed because t he compl ai nt suf f i ci ent l y pl eads a cause of act i on
f or def amat i on agai nst Boehei mand t he Uni ver si t y based on
st at ement s t hat ar e def amat or y f act s or , al t er nat i vel y, mi xed
opi ni on. We agr ee t he compl ai nt i s suf f i ci ent t o sur vi ve t he
mot i on t o di smi ss, and r ever se t he Appel l at e Di vi si on.
I I .
Thi s appeal comes t o us on a pr e- answer mot i on t o
di smi ss pur suant t o CPLR 3211 ( a) ( 7) , a pr ocedur al post ur e whi ch
r equi r es t hat " we accept as t r ue each and ever y al l egat i on made
by pl ai nt i f f and l i mi t our i nqui r y t o t he l egal suf f i ci ency of
pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai m" ( Si l sdor f v Levi ne, 59 NY2d 8, 12 [ 1983] ; see
al so Ar mst r ong v Si mon & Schust er , I nc. , 85 NY2d 373, 379
[ 1995] ) . Unl i ke on a mot i on f or summar y j udgment wher e t he cour t
" sear ches t he r ecor d and assesses t he suf f i ci ency of t he par t i es'
- 6 -
- 7 - No. 145
evi dence, " on a mot i on t o di smi ss t he cour t " mer el y exami nes t he
adequacy of t he pl eadi ngs" ( St at e v Bar cl ays Bank of New Yor k,
N. A. , 151 AD2d 19, 21 [ 3d Dept 1989] , af f d 76 NY2d 533 [ 1990] ).
I n det er mi ni ng t he suf f i ci ency of a def amat i on pl eadi ng, we
consi der " whet her t he cont est ed st at ement s ar e r easonabl y
suscept i bl e of a def amat or y connot at i on" ( Ar mst r ong, 85 NY2d at
380, ci t i ng Wei ner v Doubl eday & Co. , 74 NY2d 586, 593 [ 1989] ) .
As we have pr evi ousl y st at ed, " [ i ] f , upon any r easonabl e vi ew of
t he st at ed f act s, pl ai nt i f f woul d be ent i t l ed t o r ecover y f or
def amat i on, t he compl ai nt must be deemed t o suf f i ci ent l y st at e a
cause of act i on" ( Si l sdor f , 59 NY2d at 12 [ 1983] , ci t i ng 219
Br oadway Cor p. v Al exander ' s, I nc. , 46 NY2d 506, 509 [ 1979] ) . We
appl y t hi s l i ber al st andar d f ul l y awar e t hat per mi t t i ng
l i t i gat i on t o pr oceed t o di scover y car r i es t he r i sk of
pot ent i al l y chi l l i ng f r ee speech, but do so because, as we have
pr evi ousl y st at ed, " we r ecogni ze as wel l a pl ai nt i f f ' s r i ght t o
seek r edr ess, and not have t he cour t house door s cl osed at t he
ver y i ncept i on of an act i on, wher e t he pl eadi ng meet s t he mi ni mal
st andar d necessar y t o r esi st di smi ssal of t he compl ai nt "
( Ar mst r ong, 85 NY2d at 379) .
I n or der f or t he chal l enged st at ement s t o be
suscept i bl e of a def amat or y connot at i on, t hey must come wi t hi n
t he wel l est abl i shed cat egor i es of act i onabl e communi cat i ons.
Thus, a f al se st at ement " t hat t ends t o expose a per son t o publ i c
cont empt , hat r ed, r i di cul e, aver si on or di sgr ace const i t ut es
- 7 -
- 8 - No. 145
def amat i on" ( Thomas H. v Paul B. , 18 NY3d 580, 584 [ 2012] ) .
" Si nce f al si t y i s a necessar y el ement of a def amat i on cause of
act i on and onl y ' f act s' ar e capabl e of bei ng pr oven f al se, ' onl y
st at ement s al l egi ng f act s can pr oper l y be t he subj ect of a
def amat i on act i on' " ( Gr oss v New Yor k Ti mes, 82 NY2d 146, 152- 153
[ 1993] , ci t i ng 600 W. 115t h St . Cor p. v Von Gut f el d, 80 NY2d 130,
139 [ 1992] and I mmuno AG. v Moor - J ankowski , 74 NY2d 548, 254
[ 1989] ) .
A def amat or y st at ement of f act i s i n cont r ast t o " pur e
opi ni on" whi ch under our l aws i s not act i onabl e because
" [ e] xpr essi ons of opi ni on, as opposed t o asser t i ons of f act , ar e
deemed pr i vi l eged and, no mat t er how of f ensi ve, cannot be t he
subj ect of an act i on f or def amat i on" ( Mann v Abel , 10 NY3d 271,
276 [ 2012] ) . For , " [ h] owever per ni ci ous an opi ni on may seem, we
depend f or i t s cor r ect i on not on t he consci ence of j udges and
j ur i es but on t he compet i t i on of ot her i deas" ( St ei nhi l ber v
Al phonse, 68 NY2d 283, 289 [ 1986] , ci t i ng Ger t z v Rober t Wel ch,
I nc. , 418 US 323, 339- 340 [ 1974] ) . A pur e opi ni on may t ake one
of t wo f or ms. I t may be " a st at ement of opi ni on whi ch i s
accompani ed by a r eci t at i on of t he f act s upon whi ch i t i s based, "
or i t may be " an opi ni on not accompani ed by such a f act ual
r eci t at i on" so l ong as " i t does not i mpl y t hat i t i s based upon
undi scl osed f act s" ( St ei nhi l ber , 68 NY2d at 289, ci t i ng Ol l man v
Evans, 750 F2d 970, 976 [ DC Ci r 1984] ) .
Whi l e a pur e opi ni on cannot be t he subj ect of a
- 8 -
- 9 - No. 145
def amat i on cl ai m, an opi ni on t hat " i mpl i es t hat i t i s based upon
f act s whi ch j ust i f y t he opi ni on but ar e unknown t o t hose r eadi ng
or hear i ng i t , [ ] i s a ' mi xed opi ni on' and i s act i onabl e"
( St ei nhi l ber , 68 NY2d at 289, ci t i ng Hot chner v Cast i l l o- Puche,
551 F2d 910, 913 [ 2d Ci r ] , cer t deni ed sub nom. Hot chner v
Doubl eday & Co. , 434 US 834 and Ci anci v New Ti mes Pub. Co. , 639
F2d 54, 64, 65 [ 2d Ci r ] ) . Thi s r equi r ement t hat t he f act s upon
whi ch t he opi ni on i s based ar e known " ensur e[ s] t hat t he r eader
has t he oppor t uni t y t o assess t he basi s upon whi ch t he opi ni on
was r eached i n or der t o dr aw [ t he r eader ' s] own concl usi ons
concer ni ng i t s val i di t y" ( Si l sdor f , 59 NY2d at 13- 14) . What
di f f er ent i at es an act i onabl e mi xed opi ni on f r oma pr i vi l eged,
pur e opi ni on i s " t he i mpl i cat i on t hat t he speaker knows cer t ai n
f act s, unknown t o [ t he] audi ence, whi ch suppor t [ t he speaker ' s]
opi ni on and ar e det r i ment al t o t he per son" bei ng di scussed
( St ei nhi l ber , 68 NY2d at 290, ci t i ng Rand v New Yor k Ti mes Co. ,
75 AD2d 417, 422 and Si l sdor f , 59 NY2d at 14) .
Di st i ngui shi ng bet ween f act and opi ni on i s a quest i on
of l aw f or t he cour t s, t o be deci ded based on " what t he aver age
per son hear i ng or r eadi ng t he communi cat i on woul d t ake i t t o
mean" ( St ei nhi l ber , 68 NY2d at 290; Mann, 10 NY3d at 276
[ " [ w] het her a par t i cul ar st at ement const i t ut es an opi ni on or
obj ect i ve f act i s a quest i on of l aw" ] , ci t i ng Ri nal di v Hol t ,
Ri nehar t & Wi nst on, 42 NY2d 369, 381 [ 1977] , cer t deni ed 434 US
969 [ 1977] ) . " The di sposi t i ve i nqui r y . . . i s ' whet her a
- 9 -
- 10 - No. 145
r easonabl e [ r eader ] coul d have concl uded t hat [ t he st at ement s
wer e] conveyi ng f act s about t he pl ai nt i f f " ( Gr oss, 82 NY2d at 152
ci t i ng 600 W. 115t h St . Cor p. , 80 NY2d at 139) .
We appl y t hr ee f act or s i n det er mi ni ng whet her a
r easonabl e r eader woul d consi der t he st at ement connot es f act or
nonact i onabl e opi ni on: " ( 1) whet her t he speci f i c l anguage i n
i ssue has a pr eci se meani ng whi ch i s r eadi l y under st ood; ( 2)
whet her t he st at ement s ar e capabl e of bei ng pr oven t r ue or f al se;
and ( 3) whet her ei t her t he f ul l cont ext of t he communi cat i on i n
whi ch t he st at ement appear s or t he br oader soci al cont ext and
sur r oundi ng ci r cumst ances ar e such as t o si gnal . . . r eader s or
l i st ener s t hat what i s bei ng r ead or hear d i s l i kel y t o be
opi ni on, not f act " ( Mann, 10 NY3d at 276, quot i ng Br i an, 87 NY2d
at 51) .
The t hi r d f act or " l ends bot h dept h and di f f i cul t y t o
t he anal ysi s" ( Br i an, 87 NY2d at 51) , and r equi r es t hat t he cour t
consi der t he cont ent of t he communi cat i on as a whol e, i t s t one
and appar ent pur pose ( Br i an, 87 NY2d at 51; Mann, 10 NY3d at 276,
quot i ng Br i an, 87 NY2d at 51) . Thus, we have adopt ed a hol i st i c
appr oach t o t hi s i nqui r y. " Rat her t han si f t i ng t hr ough a
communi cat i on f or t he pur pose of i sol at i ng and i dent i f yi ng
asser t i ons of f act , t he cour t shoul d l ook t o t he over - al l cont ext
i n whi ch t he asser t i ons wer e made and det er mi ne on t hat basi s
' whet her t he r easonabl e r eader woul d have bel i eved t hat t he
chal l enged st at ement s wer e conveyi ng f act s about t he [ ]
- 10 -
- 11 - No. 145
pl ai nt i f f ' " ( Br i an, 87 NY2d at 51, ci t i ng I mmuno AG. , 74 NY2d at
254, St ei nhi l ber , 68 NY2d at 293; Mann, 10 NY3d at 276, quot i ng
Br i an, 87 NY2d at 51) .
I I I .
I n t hei r compl ai nt , Davi s and Lang al l eged t hat Boehei m
made def amat or y st at ement s t hat t hey wer e l i ar s seeki ng money.
I n suppor t of t hei r cl ai m, t hey i dent i f i ed quot es f r omBoehei mi n
whi ch he st at ed:
( 1) " Thi s i s al l eged t o have occur r ed . . .
what ? Twent y year s ago? AmI i n t he r i ght
nei ghbor hood? . . . So we ar e supposed t o do
what ? St op t he pr esses 26 year s l at er ? For a
f al se al l egat i on? For what I absol ut el y
bel i eve i s a f al se al l egat i on? I know [ Davi s
i s] l yi ng about me seei ng hi mi n hi s hot el
r oom. That ' s a l i e. I f he' s goi ng t o t el l
one l i e, I ' msur e t her e' s a f ew mor e of
t hem. "
( 2) " The Penn St at e t hi ng came out and t he
ki d behi nd t hi s i s t r yi ng t o get money. He' s
t r i ed bef or e. And now he' s t r yi ng agai n . . . .
That ' s what t hi s i s about . Money. "
( 3) " I t i s a bunch of a t housand l i es t hat
[ Davi s] has t ol d . . . . He suppl i ed f our names
t o t he uni ver si t y t hat woul d cor r obor at e hi s
st or y. None of t hemdi d . . . t her e i s onl y
one si de t o t hi s st or y. He i s l yi ng. "
Boehei mcont i nued, " I bel i eve t hey saw what
happened at Penn St at e, and t hey ar e usi ng
ESPN t o get money. That i s what I bel i eve. "
( 4) " You don' t t hi nk i t i s a l i t t l e f unny
t hat hi s cousi n ( r el at i ve) i s comi ng
f or war d?"
( 5) Boehei mst at ed t hat t he t i mi ng of Lang' s
deci si on t o speak out about hi s abuse seemed
- 11 -
- 12 - No. 145
" a l i t t l e suspi ci ous. "
Appl yi ng t he af or ement i oned pr i nci pl es t o t hi s case,
t he f i r st and second f act or s wei gh i n f avor of f i ndi ng t hat
Boehei m' s st at ement s wer e f act ual asser t i ons. Wi t h r espect t o
t he f i r st f act or , Boehei mused speci f i c, easi l y under st ood
l anguage t o communi cat e t hat Davi s and Lang l i ed, t hei r mot i ve
was f i nanci al gai n, and Davi s had made pr i or si mi l ar st at ement s
f or t he same r eason. These ar e cl ear st at ement s of t he
pl ai nt i f f s' act i ons and t he dr i vi ng f or ce f or t hei r al l egat i ons
agai nst Fi ne. Consi der at i on of t he second f act or si mi l ar l y
wei ghs i n f avor of t r eat i ng Boehei m' s st at ement s as f act ual
because t he st at ement s ar e capabl e of bei ng pr oven t r ue or f al se,
as t hey concer n whet her pl ai nt i f f s made f al se sexual abuse
al l egat i ons agai nst Fi ne i n or der t o get money, and whet her Davi s
had made f al se st at ement s i n t he past ( see McNamee v Cl emens, 762
F Supp 2d 584, 601 [ EDNY 2011] [ di st i ngui shi ng gener al deni al s of
accusat i ons f r omspeci f i c st at ement s t hat accuser " wi l l be pr oven
a l i ar and has l i ed i n f r ont of member s of congr ess" and hol di ng
t he l at t er act i onabl e] ) . Mor eover , t hey wer e not " r het or i cal
hyper bol e r at her t han obj ect i ve f act " ( Ramv Mor i t t , 205 AD2d
516, 517 [ 2d Dept 1994] ; see al so I nd. Li vi ng Ai ds v Maxi - Ai ds,
I nc. , 981 F Supp 124, 128 [ EDNY 1997] [ epi t het ' l i ar ' , i n
cont ext , wher e i t r ef l ect s a mer e deni al of accusat i ons, was
per sonal opi ni on and r het or i cal hyper bol e] ) . Our i nqui r y,
however , does not r est on t hese t wo f act or s because t he t hi r d
- 12 -
- 13 - No. 145
f act or i n t he anal ysi s " i s of t en t he key consi der at i on i n
cat egor i zi ng a st at ement as f act or opi ni on" ( Thomas H. , 18 NY3d
at 585, ci t i ng I mmuno AG. , 77 NY2d at 254) . I t i s t hi s t hi r d
f act or t hat t he par t i es vi gor ousl y di sput e, and whi ch we concl ude
est abl i shes t he suf f i ci ency of pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt .
Def endant s cont end t hat t he cont ext i n whi ch t he
st at ement s wer e made l eads i nexor abl y t o t he concl usi on t hat
Boehei m' s st at ement s ar e nonact i onabl e pur e opi ni on. They ar gue
t hat a r eader woul d consi der Boehei m' s st at ement s as an obvi ous
and t r anspar ent ef f or t t o def end hi s l ong- t i me cl ose f r i end and
col l eague agai nst al l egat i ons of sexual abuse, as wel l as an
ef f or t t o def end agai nst suggest i ons t hat Boehei mknew about t he
al l eged abuse and di d not hi ng. They f ur t her ar gue t hat he
speci f i cal l y deni ed any speci al knowl edge when he st at ed, " I know
not hi ng" and " I r eal l y don' t have any f act s. "
Essent i al l y, def endant s ar gue t hat because a r eader
coul d i nt er pr et t he st at ement as pur e opi ni on, t he st at ement i s
as a consequence, nonact i onabl e and was pr oper l y di smi ssed under
CPLR 3211 ( a) ( 7) . However , on a mot i on t o di smi ss we consi der
whet her any r eadi ng of t he compl ai nt suppor t s t he def amat i on
cl ai m. Thus, al t hough " [ i ] t may wel l be t hat [ t he chal l enged
st at ement s] ar e subj ect t o [ def endant s' ] i nt er pr et at i on [ ] t he
mot i on t o di smi ss must be deni ed i f t he communi cat i on at i ssue,
t aki ng t he wor ds i n t hei r or di nar y meani ng and i n cont ext , i s
al so suscept i bl e t o a def amat or y connot at i on" ( Sweeney v
- 13 -
- 14 - No. 145
Pr i soner s' Legal Ser vi ces of New Yor k, I nc. , 146 AD2d 1, 4 [ 3d
Dept 1989] , ci t i ng Car ney v Memor i al Hosp. & Nur si ng Home, 64
NY2d 770, 772 [ 1985] and Si l sdor f , 59 NY2d at 12- 13) . We f i nd
t hi s compl ai nt t o meet t hi s mi ni mumpl eadi ng r equi r ement .
Her e, Boehei mst at ed t hat Davi s and Lang l i ed and di d
so f or monet ar y gai n, and t hat Davi s had done so i n t he past .
Boehei m' s asser t i ons t hat Davi s pr evi ousl y made t he same cl ai ms,
f or t he same pur pose, communi cat ed t hat Boehei mwas r el yi ng on
undi scl osed f act s t hat woul d j ust i f y Boehei m' s st at ement s t hat
Davi s and Lang wer e nei t her cr edi bl e nor vi ct i ms of sexual
abuse.
1
That , as def endant s ar gue, Boehei mdeni ed knowl edge of
f act s, or pr ef aced some st at ement s by sayi ng " I bel i eve" , i s
i nsuf f i ci ent t o t r ansf or mhi s st at ement s i nt o nonact i onabl e pur e
opi ni on, because i n cont ext , a r easonabl e r eader coul d vi ew hi s
st at ement s as suppor t ed by undi scl osed f act s despi t e t hese
deni al s ( Thomas H. , 18 NY3d at 586) .
The cont ext f ur t her suggest s t o t he r eader t hat Boehei m
spoke wi t h aut hor i t y, and t hat hi s st at ement s wer e based on
f act s. Boehei mwas a wel l r espect ed, exal t ed member of t he
Uni ver si t y and t he Syr acuse communi t y- at - l ar ge, and as head coach
of t he t eamappear ed wel l pl aced t o have i nf or mat i on about t he
char ges. Boehei m' s i ni t i al st at ement , whi ch cont ai ned
1
Based on our concl usi on t hat t he compl ai nt suf f i ci ent l y
st at es a cl ai mf or def amat i on, we need not addr ess whet her
pl ai nt i f f s' al t er nat i ve t heor y of mi xed opi ni on based on
di st or t ed f act s was pr eser ved bel ow and pr oper l y bef or e us.
- 14 -
- 15 - No. 145
i nf or mat i on about t he Uni ver si t y' s i nvest i gat i on, was r el eased on
t he School ' s websi t e, conf i r mi ng hi s st at us wi t hi n t he
Uni ver si t y. Hi s st at ement cont ai ned i nf or mat i on about Davi s'
al l egat i ons and t he Uni ver si t y' s i nvest i gat i on, whi ch a r eader
coul d under st and was based on Boehei m' s access t o f act ual det ai l s
unavai l abl e t o t he publ i c, f act s whi ch suppor t ed hi s asser t i ons
about Davi s and hi s mot i ve. That Boehei m' s st at ement was i ssued
pr i or t o t he Uni ver si t y' s f i r st publ i c st at ement about t he
i nvest i gat i on, f ur t her suggest s t hat Boehei mhad access t o
ot her wi se conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on. Mor eover , Boehei mwor ked
wi t h Fi ne f or many year s and cl ai med t o " know" Davi s f r omwhen
Davi s was a chi l d assi st i ng t he t eamand ser vi ng as a babysi t t er ,
f ur t her suggest i ng t hat Boehei mhad par t i cul ar det ai l s upon whi ch
he r el i ed i n asser t i ng t hat t he al l egat i ons wer e unt r ue.
I n addi t i on, Boehei mknowi ngl y made t hese st at ement s t o r epor t er s
dur i ng t he medi a i nvest i gat i on and cover age of t he pl ai nt i f f s'
al l egat i ons. Those st at ement s wer e t hen publ i shed i n news-
r el at ed ar t i cl es t hat descr i bed t he al l egat i ons, compar i ng t hem
t o t he Penn St at e vi ct i ms' cl ai ms, and di scussi ng t he i mpact of
t he sexual abuse char ges on t he i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved. Al t hough
t he pl acement of t he ar t i cl es i s but one f act or t o be consi der ed,
because t he ar t i cl es ci t ed by pl ai nt i f f s cannot be cat egor i zed as
op eds or l et t er s t o t he edi t or , " t he common expect at i ons t hat
appl y t o t hose mor e opi ni onat ed j our nal i st i c endeavor s wer e
i nappl i cabl e her e ( see, I mmuno AG. v Moor - J ankowski , supr a) .
- 15 -
- 16 - No. 145
Thus, t he ci r cumst ances under whi ch t hese accusat i ons wer e
publ i shed ' encour ag[ ed] t he r easonabl e r eader t o be l ess
skept i cal and mor e wi l l i ng t o concl ude t hat [ t hey] st at [ ed] or
i mpl [ i ed] f act s' " ( Gr oss, 82 NY2d at 156, quot i ng 600 West 115t h
St r eet 80 NY2d at 142) .

I V.
At t hi s ear l y st age of t he l i t i gat i on, on t hi s pr e-
answer mot i on t o di smi ss and on t he r ecor d bef or e us, we cannot
st at e as a mat t er of l aw t hat t he st at ement s ar e pur e opi ni on.
Ther e i s a r easonabl e vi ew of t he cl ai ms upon whi ch Davi s and
Lang woul d be ent i t l ed t o r ecover f or def amat i on, t her ef or e t he
compl ai nt must be deemed t o suf f i ci ent l y st at e a cause of act i on
( Si l sdor f , 59 NY2d at 12) . Accor di ngl y, t he Appel l at e Di vi si on
or der shoul d be r ever sed, wi t h cost s, and t he mot i on t o di smi ss
t he compl ai nt deni ed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Or der r ever sed, wi t h cost s, and def endant s' mot i on t o di smi ss t he
compl ai nt deni ed. Opi ni on by J udge Ri ver a. Chi ef J udge Li ppman
and J udges Gr af f eo, Read, Smi t h and Abdus- Sal aamconcur .
J udge Pi got t t ook no par t .
Deci ded Oct ober 21, 2014
- 16 -