April 7, 2026

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered May 27, 2025, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a determination of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by defendants in responding to this appeal.

Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a cause of action, as the underlying lawsuit filed in federal court had a substantial basis in fact and law (see Civil Rights Law § 70-a; Smartmatic USA Corp. v Fox Corp., 213 AD3d 512, 512 [1st Dept 2023]). The federal court in the underlying lawsuit already found, based on plaintiff's own pleadings and submissions, that plaintiff was liable to defendants for defamation, and a trial has been scheduled on the issue of damages. Further, the federal court already dismissed substantially the same anti-SLAPP cause of action in the federal case on the merits.

Under the circumstances, this appeal is frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and defendants should be reimbursed for their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred on this appeal (see Boye v Rubin & Bailin, LLP, 152 AD3d 1, 11 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Levine, 82 AD3d 524, 527 [1st Dept 2011]). Therefore, this matter is remanded to Supreme Court for a determination of the amount of expenses and fees incurred by defendants in responding to this appeal, and for entry of the appropriate judgment against plaintiff. Concur—Scarpulla, J.P., Friedman, Shulman, Rodriguez, Rosado, JJ.

Motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, denied.