Opinion
May 16, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injurious falsehood and defamation arising from alleged slanderous statements made by the defendant during an election campaign for the board of directors of a condominium where both parties resided. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a cause of action.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the alleged remarks attributed to the defendant do not constitute slander, slander per se, or injurious falsehood, and that the complaint was properly dismissed (see generally, Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429). The remarks, when construed in their full context and interpreted based on the understanding of the reasonable person, constituted personal opinion and rhetorical hyperbole rather than objective fact, and thus are not actionable (see generally, 600 W. 115th St. Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 80 N.Y.2d 130, cert denied ___ US ___, 113 S Ct 2341; Polish Am. Immigration Relief Comm. v Relax, 189 A.D.2d 370; Golub v. Esquire Publ., 124 A.D.2d 528). Moreover, the challenged statements were protected by a qualified privilege (see generally, Liberman v. Gelstein, supra).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant's remaining contention regarding special damages. Balletta, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Goldstein, JJ., concur.