Opinion
May 9, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Lefkowitz, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for the alleged breach of a business agreement entered into with the appellants. In their answer, the appellants asserted counterclaims to recover damages for alleged slanderous statements made by the plaintiff Anne Bryant. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appellants' counterclaims. We affirm.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the alleged remarks attributed to Anne Bryant do not constitute slander per se and, in the absence of allegations of special damages, the counterclaims were properly dismissed (see generally, Liberman v Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429; Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 N.Y.2d 592; Weinstock v. Goldstein, 190 A.D.2d 847). Indeed, our review of the purported remarks persuades us that they are "not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning" (Aronson v. Wiersma, supra, at 594), but instead consist of non-actionable rhetorical hyperbole or statements of personal opinion and advocacy rather than objective fact (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; Grace Co. v. Todd Assocs., 188 A.D.2d 585; Golub v. Esquire Publ., 124 A.D.2d 528). Our determination that the challenged remarks are not defamatory in nature renders academic the appellants' remaining contention regarding the amendment of the counterclaims to allege special damages. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.