## Facts

- Robert Davis and Michael Lang alleged that Syracuse University basketball coach Bernie Fine sexually abused them for years starting when they were children involved with the program.
- Davis reported the alleged abuse to local police in 2002; he alleged no investigation occurred and he was told limitations issues applied.
- Davis later reported the allegations to the university; the university stated it investigated and concluded the allegations were unfounded.
- In 2011, the allegations gained renewed national media attention amid heightened public scrutiny of institutional responses to child sexual abuse claims.
- In multiple public statements to major media outlets, head coach James Boeheim defended Fine and challenged plaintiffs’ credibility, including statements that plaintiffs were lying and were motivated by financial gain.
- Plaintiffs sued Boeheim and Syracuse University for defamation, alleging reputational, economic, and emotional harm.

## Issues

1. Whether, accepting the pleaded facts as true on a pre-answer motion to dismiss, Boeheim’s statements were nonactionable “pure opinion” or were reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning as assertions of fact or “mixed opinion.”
2. Whether the statements, in their full communication and social context, could be understood by a reasonable audience as implying undisclosed facts supporting the accusations.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s affirmance of dismissal and reinstated the defamation complaint.
- The court held the challenged statements were reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation and were not, as a matter of law, protected “pure opinion.”
- The court concluded that dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) was improper because a factfinder could interpret the statements as defamatory assertions of fact or actionable mixed opinion.

## Legal Principles

- On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, the complaint is liberally construed, facts are accepted as true, and plaintiffs receive the benefit of every favorable inference; the question is whether a reasonable view of the pleadings supports recovery.
- New York distinguishes protected “pure opinion” from actionable statements of fact and “mixed opinion.”
- In separating fact from opinion, courts consider: (1) whether the specific language has a precise meaning readily understood; (2) whether it is capable of being proven true or false; and (3) whether the full communication and broader social context signal to a reasonable listener that the statement is opinion rather than fact.
- “Mixed opinion” is an opinion that implies a basis in undisclosed facts; it is actionable if the implied, undisclosed facts are false.
- Context may inform how a statement is understood, but a public controversy does not automatically convert specific accusations (such as lying or financial motive) into nonactionable opinion, particularly when spoken by an apparent insider with perceived access to underlying facts.

## Conclusion

The court held that public accusations by a prominent insider that abuse claimants were lying and seeking money could be understood as provably false factual assertions or mixed opinion implying undisclosed facts; therefore, the defamation claims were sufficiently pleaded to proceed beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage.


Davis v. Boeheim, 24 N.Y.3d 262 (N.Y. 2014)