Pryor v. Brignole — dissenting

Summary

The dissent argues that the denial of the defendants’ special motions to dismiss was not an immediately appealable final judgment because the anti-SLAPP statute creates no right to an interlocutory appeal or immunity from suit. It further reasons that defendants who deny making the alleged statements may not have a colorable claim to the statute’s protections, because the statute is reserved for parties asserting that their own constitutionally protected conduct is implicated. Justice D’Auria, joined by Justice Ecker, would have upheld the Appellate Court’s dismissal of the appeals and criticized the remand as causing further delay.