On November 14, 2022, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Sozo Inv. Partners L.P. v. 1600 N 11th St. CRCP LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op. 33854(U), holding that New York’s anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to a commercial dispute related to a matter of public interest, explaining:
Plaintiff contends that New York’s anti·SLAPP – Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – law requires defendants’ claims to be analyzed under a heightened standard and entitles plaintiff to recover its costs and attorneys’ fees in connection with dismissal. Plaintiff asserts that the anti·SLAPP statute applies as the Project has drawn controversy such that it is not a purely private matter. Defendants disagree, insisting that this case is a purely private matter.
Under the anti·SLAPP statute, if a party making a motion to dismiss has demonstrated that the action, claim, cross claim, or counterclaim subject to the motion is an action involving public petition and participation as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section seventy·six·a of the civil rights law then the motion shall be granted unless the party responding to the motion demonstrates that the cause of action has a substantial basis in law or is supported by a substantial argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. The civil rights law defines an action involving public petition and participation as one in connection with an issue of public interest. Public interest means any subject other than a purely private matter. New York courts have generally applied a broad interpretation to what constitutes a matter of public concern.
Plaintiff argues that the development of student housing in downtown Philadelphia is undoubtedly a matter of public interest because, allegedly, the project has occasioned controversy, criticism, and rebukes. from local planning and development authorities. Assuming that to be true, it is nonetheless clear that what is before the court, including the Agreement’s actual scope covering the economic splits for sharing of proceeds and all other terms (including those readily apparent and those alleged), is a purely private matter. Accordingly, the anti·SLAPP statute does not apply and plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorneys’ fees is denied.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).