DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00075.png

Case 18-2868, Document 276, 08/09/2019, 2628224, Page26 of 77 177 (2d Cir. 2000)); accord, e.g., Aronson v. Wiersma, 483 N.E.2d 1138, 1139 (N.Y. 1985). New York defamation law applies. Doc.37 at 6 n.2. “Tt is a settled rule that expressions of an opinion false or not, libelous or not, are constitutionally protected and may not be the subject of private damage actions.” Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 501 N.E.2d 550, 550 (N.Y. 1986) (internal quotations omitted). Whether a challenged statement is fact or opinion is a question of law to be decided by the Court. Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC v. Bleeping Computer LLC, No. 16 CIV. 57 (PAE), 2016 WL 3773394, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2016); accord, e.g., Steinhilber, 501 N.E.2d at 553. In Immuno AG v. Moor-Jankowski,'' the New York Court of Appeals declared that the New York Constitution provides greater protection to opinion than the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court recognized that in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), the United States Supreme Court reversed a state court decision dismissing a complaint on the ground that the allegedly defamatory statement was nonactionable opinion. The Supreme Court held there is no “wholesale defamation exemption” protecting opinion. The First Amendment analysis under Milkovich, the New York court observed, was one-dimensional: the trial court should look first to the allegedly defamatory statement’s specific words as commonly understood and then determine whether the statements were “verifiable”; if the statements were verifiable, then they were actionable statements of fact. See Immuno AG, 567 N.E.2d at 1274-75. The Supreme Court’s holding made it clear that it would not consider as part of the First Amendment analysis “the full context of the article in which the challenged statements appear, and the broader social context or setting surrounding the communication.” /d. at 1274. "567 N.E.2d 1270 (N.Y. 1991). 19