Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants in action No. 2 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action is granted.
"The essence of the tort of [defamation] is the publication of a statement about an individual that is both false and defamatory. Since falsity is a sine qua non of a [defamation] claim and since only assertions of fact are capable of being proven false . . . a libel action cannot be maintained unless it is premised on . . . assertions of fact," rather than on assertions of opinion ( Brian v Richardson, 87 NY2d 46, 50-51). The determination of whether a statement is one of opinion or of fact is to be made by the court ( see Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146, 153). In making that determination, relevant factors are "(1) whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood; (2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and (3) whether either the full context of the communication in which the statement appears or the broader social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to `signal . . . readers or listeners that what is being read or heard is likely to be opinion, not fact'" ( Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d at 153, quoting Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 NY2d 283, 292). A "statement of opinion that is accompanied by a recitation of the facts on which it is based or one that does not imply the existence of undisclosed underlying facts" is not actionable as defamation ( Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d at 153-154).
The defendants in action No. 2 made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325) by proffering evidence sufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that their alleged statements constituted statements of opinion, and not of fact ( see Bernard v Grenci, 48 AD3d 722, 723; Miness v Alter, 262 AD2d 374; Ferris v Loyal Order of Moose Oneonta Lodge No. 465, 259 AD2d 914, 915; cf. Clark v Schuylerville Cent. School Dist., 24 AD3d 1162, 1164). In opposition, the plaintiff in action No. 2 failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the motion of the defendants in action No. 2 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action.