Opinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff, a high school French teacher, brought this defamation action against her student, Vanessa Zimmerman, and her parents, Marc and Sandra Zimmerman, based on written and oral statements in which they charged, in essence, that the plaintiff was incompetent, and requested that the plaintiff be replaced as Vanessa's French teacher. Our review of these statements convinces us that they were not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning, and constituted personal opinion and rhetorical hyperbole rather than objective fact. Thus, the challenged statements were constitutionally protected (see generally, Immuno AG. v Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, 243, cert denied 500 U.S. 954). Expressions of pure opinion are afforded greater protection under the New York State Constitution than under the Federal Constitution. Pure opinion is defined as a statement of opinion which is accompanied by a recitation of the facts upon which it is based or does not imply that it is based upon undisclosed facts (see, Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283, 289). Here, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the expressions of opinion in the challenged statements were sufficiently supported by a recitation of the underlying facts (see, Steinhilber v Alphonse, supra, at 289). Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.