DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00076.png

Case 18-2868, Document 276, 08/09/2019, 2628224, Page27 of 77 The Immuno AG Court of Appeals held that Article I, Section 8, of the New York Constitution required a multidimensional approach to the determination whether an allegedly defamatory statement constitutes constitutionally protected opinion. The court gave numerous 20 6 reasons. New York’s “expansive” constitutional guarantee of speech was formulated and adopted before the application of the First Amendment to the states; “[i]t has long been our standard in defamation actions” to consider factors beyond whether facts are “‘verifiable”; and the court was 666 concerned that if “type of speech’ is to be construed narrowly[,] . . . insufficient protection may be accorded to central values protected by the law of this State.” /d. at 1277-78. The Immuno AG court reaffirmed that where a defendant alleges that the subject statement is opinion, Steinhilber supplies the analytical framework. /d. at 1280. Steinhilber held that whether an allegedly defamatory statement is fact or nonactionable opinion should be decided based on four factors: (1) an assessment of whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood or whether it is indefinite and ambiguous; (2) a determination of whether the statement is capable of being objectively characterized as true or false; (3) an examination of the full context of the communication in which the statement appears; and (4) a consideration of the broader social context or setting surrounding the communication including the existence of any applicable customs or conventions which might signal to readers or listeners that what is being read or heard is likely to be opinion, not fact. 501 N.E.2d at 554. Application of these factors to the January 2015 statement compels the conclusion that the allegedly defamatory words, phrases and clauses are nonactionable opinion. Whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood or whether it is indefinite and ambiguous. The three sentences plaintiff alleges are 20