On October 7, 2024, Justice Schecter of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in TRB Acquisitions LLC v. Yedid, 2024 NY Slip Op. 33565(U), holding that a claim that cannot survive summary judgment lacks a substantial basis under New York’s anti-SLAPP law, explaining:
[A]s the Appellate Division recently confirmed, a claim that lacks merit as a matter of law necessarily lacks a substantial basis under the anti-SLAPP law. While plaintiffs’ claim initially did not lack a substantial basis due to the holding in TRB I, it lacked any legal basis after Gottwald. That plaintiffs’ arguments are not frivolous does not mean that their claim has a substantial basis. Rather, where, as here, there is no triable issue of fact and summary judgment is granted, the claim lacks a substantial basis within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP law. Defendant is therefore entitled to partial summary judgment on his counterclaim to the extent that he shall recover the reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred while this action was continued after June 13, 2023 as it lacked a substantial basis . . . That plaintiffs asserted a breach-of-contract claim rather than a defamation or tort claim does not matter. Here, the subject claim arises from the protected activity insofar as that activity constituted the means by which
the confidentiality agreement was allegedly breached, and therefore supplied the breach
element of the breach of contract claim, that is, the speech constituting the alleged breach was made in connection with a lawsuit or other governmental proceeding.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).