fraud or misconduct to Brenner, nor do they suggest a general unfitness, incapacity, or inability to perform her duties. Further, the statements that Brenner “hates homosexuals” and was “a loose cannon” and a liar do not specifically reflect upon her competence as a fitness instructor or as an owner of Pure Power, but, rather, constitute a “more general reflection” upon Brenner’s character and, therefore, do not fall within the “trade, business, or profession” exception. Moreover, with the exception of Lee’s statements regarding Brenner’s firing of one of her drill instructors, the Court finds the remaining allegedly defamatory statements to be statements of pure opinion, and not fact. See Daniel Goldreyer, Ltd. v. Van de Wetering, 217 A.D.2d 434, 435, 630 N.Y.S.2d 18 (1st Dep’t 1995) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court concludes that
holding that pure questions of law that are discernible from the record are subject to de novo review holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding that expressions of pure opinion receive absolute protection under the new york constitution holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership holding that imaginative expression and rhetorical hyperbole are pure opinion subject to new york constitutional protection