A recent decision in a case Moses Singer is handling illustrates an important practice point in defamation litigation, both for plaintiffs and defendants. The key takeaway from the case is that filing a lawsuit for defamation is not a free shot at an adversary: The plaintiff can end up out of court in a hurry and have to pay defendant’s counsel fees and damages.

A resident at a condominium on Long Island sent a series of emails to condominium management and the other residents at the condominium pointing out structural and financial problems of the condominium and criticizing management’s failure to rectify them. Condominium management responded by suing the resident and his wife for defamation and other causes of action relating to the resident’s communications, claiming $1 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages.

Rather than answer the Complaint and start discovery, Moses Singer invoked New York’s anti-SLAPP law, which prohibits Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. That law, Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a(1)(a) and 76-a, permits an immediate motion to dismiss defamation-like cases that are filed to stifle public criticism. An anti-SLAPP motion puts an immediate burden on the plaintiff to come forward with evidence proving a “substantial basis in law” for its claims, as if it were a summary judgment motion. If the motion is granted, the defendant receives a mandatory award of legal fees and is entitled to prove damages as well.

Suffolk County Supreme Court granted Moses Singer’s motion and dismissed the Complaint. The Court concluded that the condominium management's claims were based on their displeasure with the defendants' public criticisms were therefore in clear contravention of the anti-SLAPP law. Indeed, condominium management withdrew its defamation and slander claims as soon as Moses Singer filed the anti-SLAPP motion. Condominium management tried to defend its breach of contract (the condominium Offering Plan and By-laws) and nuisance (allegedly annoying other condominium residents) claims, but the Court dismissed those too, concluding that all of condominium management’s claims were based on the resident’s exercise of his right to free speech, which is what the anti-SLAPP law protects. The next step in the case will be for the defendant and his wife to prove their legal fees and damages and collect them from condominium management.

This decision shows the power of New York’s anti-SLAPP protection of free speech and public participation in matters of community interest. Anti-SLAPP must always be considered when thinking about bringing a defamation suit or defending one.

Glen Harbor Holdings, LLC v. Wiener, 85 Misc. 3d 1204(A), 225 N.Y.S.3d 903, 2025 WL 339812 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2025)