Rockwell Capital Partners, Inc. v. HempAmericana, Inc., 9770

• Decision Date: 27 June 2019
• Docket Number: Index 160529/17,9770
• Citation: 173 A.D.3d 639,102 N.Y.S.3d 33
• Parties: ROCKWELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. HEMPAMERICANA, INC., Defendant–Respondent, Derwin A. Wallace, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

173 A.D.3d 639
102 N.Y.S.3d 33

ROCKWELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
HEMPAMERICANA, INC., Defendant–Respondent,

Derwin A. Wallace, et al., Defendants.

9770
Index 160529/17

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: JUNE 27, 2019

102 N.Y.S.3d 34

White and Williams LLP, New York (Nicole A. Sullivan of counsel), for appellants.

Suares Law, Brooklyn (Donnell Suares of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Singh, JJ.

173 A.D.3d 639

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert David Kalish, J.), entered January 9, 2019, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant HempAmericana, Inc.'s CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss plaintiffs' defamation claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This defamation action arises out of statements made about plaintiffs Rockwell Capital Partners, Inc. and Northbridge Financial, Inc. (Northbridge) by the Chief Executive Officer of defendant HempAmericana, Inc. (HempAmericana), nonparty Salvador Rosillo, in an interview published in CannaInvestor Magazine (the Magazine). Plaintiffs specifically object to Rosillo's characterization of the subject deal as "toxic"; implication that plaintiffs were the only reason for HempAmericana's financial troubles and low stock prices; and allegedly inaccurate reference to Northbridge as being included in the deal.

The court properly granted the motion to dismiss the defamation claims. Rosillo's characterization of the deal as "toxic" constitutes a non-actionable statement of opinion. This language is "[l]oose, figurative or hyperbolic" and lacks a precise meaning ( Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34, 38, 704 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 1999] ; see generally Brian v. Richardson, 87 N.Y.2d 46, 51, 637 N.Y.S.2d 347, 660 N.E.2d 1126 [1995] ; Pontos Renovation v. Kitano Arms Corp., 226 A.D.2d 191, 191–192, 640 N.Y.S.2d 525 [1st Dept. 1996] ;

173 A.D.3d 640 ...