Sued two of its own residents for defamation over posts criticising the cooperative on a neighbourhood application, then resisted their claim for anti-SLAPP legal fees.

A tribunal rejected this claim.

Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc. v. Luca · 2025 NY Slip Op 05118 (2d Dept 2025) · Sup Ct Richmond County · Index 151089/2023

No court has decided whether this conduct occurred. This decision resolved a procedural question. Nothing here is a finding that anyone did anything.

Outcome

Split decision

Filed

Last decision

2025-09-24

Elapsed

yrs

Brought by

board

Posture

motion to dismiss

What the court held

Statements about a cooperative circulated on a building-scoped neighbourhood application are non-actionable where, given their context and tone, reasonable readers would conclude they were reading opinion rather than fact; rhetorical hyperbole is not actionable no matter how vituperative. Separately and independently: such statements do NOT qualify for anti-SLAPP protection. Civil Rights Law s 76-a reaches communications in a public forum or otherwise in furtherance of free speech "in connection with an issue of public interest," and although "public interest" is construed broadly to mean any subject other than a purely private matter, publications directed only to a limited, private audience are matters of purely private concern. Attorneys' fees under s 70-a were therefore properly denied.

“the allegedly defamatory statements concerned a purely private matter and were directed only to a limited, private audience”
2025 NY Slip Op 05118 at *2

Outcome in full

Split, and expensive for everyone. The cooperative LOST its case: dismissal of the complaint against both resident-defendants under CPLR 3211(a)(7) affirmed, with one bill of costs to them. One resident LOST his cross-appeal: denial of anti-SLAPP attorneys' fees under Civil Rights Law ss 70-a and 76-a affirmed, with one bill of costs to the cooperative payable by him. merits_decided = 0: the dismissal held the statements non-actionable as a matter of law on the face of the pleading; no court found what anyone actually did.

The harm continued while the case ran

The residents defended a defamation action for roughly two years and nine months from filing to appellate decision, and recovered nothing for it. The cooperative's litigation costs were borne by the corporation — that is, by its shareholders, including the two it was suing.

What it cost

Not disclosed. No decision in this case states a figure, and we publish no estimate. Why costs are mostly blank.

What would have prevented this

This is the bucket's central mechanic, stated by a court. New York broadened its anti-SLAPP statute in 2020 so that a defendant who beats a meritless suit over public-interest speech recovers fees — and the Second Department has now held that criticism of your own co-op board, circulated to your own building, is not public-interest speech. The asymmetry is total: the corporation litigates with association funds contributed by every shareholder including the defendants; the residents litigate with their own money and recover none of it even when they win. A fee-shifting provision keyed to speech about the governance of a common-interest community — rather than to "public interest" as courts have construed it — would close this without touching the defamation standard at all.

Sources

Read in full and verified 2026-08-04.

← Back to Retaliation Against Owner Speech