published without privilege or authorization to a third party, constituting fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and, it must either cause special harm or constitute defamation per se.” Dillon, 261 A.D.2d at 38, 704 N.Y.S.2d at 5; accord Peters v. Baldwin Union Free Sch. Dist., 320 F.3d 164, 169 (2d Cir.2003). Under New York law, “only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action.” 600 West 115th St. Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 80 N.Y.2d 130, 139, 589 N.Y.S.2d 825, 603 N.E.2d 930 (1992); see also Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enterprises Inc., 209 F.3d 163, 178 (2d Cir.2000) (“[T]he New York Constitution provides for absolute protection of opinions.”); cf. Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283, 289, 508 N.Y.S.2d 901, 501 N.E.2d 550 (1986) (<HOLDING>). In addition, a plaintiff must allege the
recognizing a distinction between pure opinion which does not imply that it is based upon undisclosed facts and mixed opinion which implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it holding that an administrative agencys decision may not be based upon inadmissible expert opinion holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion holding that use of phrase shady practitioner to describe lawyer was nonactionable opinion where the article set forth the facts upon which the opinion was based recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue