We agree with the IAS Court that the amended complaint fails to plead evidentiary facts of malice sufficient to overcome the common interest qualified privilege protecting any defamatory statements defendant may have published to the Committee on Academic Standing, but would add that the offending written statements are also nonactionable because they were merely expressions of opinion (see, Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283, 289), and that many of the offending oral statements are also nonactionable because, while offensive, they amounted to nothing more than mere insult, not to be taken literally and not deemed injurious to reputation (DePuy v. St. John Fisher Coll., 129 A.D.2d 972).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.