NJ appellate division analyzes nj’s anti-slapp statute in a case about murder allegations

In Surdoval v. Surdoval, No. A-3884-23 (App. Div. Apr. 8, 2026) (slip op. at 3), the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed in part the trial court’s decision that the defendants’ allegedly defamatory statements did not involve a matter of public concern under New Jersey’s Anti-SLAPP statute, and remanded in part to the trial court so it could provide supplemental factual findings and legal conclusions regarding additional allegedly defamatory statements.

New Jersey’s Anti-SLAPP statute—the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (“UPEPA”)—was passed to “‘protect residents against frivolous, ill-intentioned lawsuits and insulate them from the financial hardships these cases can produce.’” Id. at 4 (quoting Satz v. Starr, 482 N.J. Super. 55, 65 (App. Div. 2025)). The statute “does not serve to dismiss the claim but rather provides litigants with a two-step procedure for expedited review of a lawsuit's merits and, if appropriate, award costs, attorney’s fees, and reasonable litigation expenses.” Id. at 4–5 (citing N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-55, -58).

The alleged defamatory statements in Surdoval are serious. The plaintiff alleged that his sisters told third parties, including the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office (“BCPO”), that the plaintiff murdered the siblings’ brother. Id. at 5–6. Yet the Bergen County Medical Examiner Office concluded that the death a suicide. Id. at 2. The trial court ruled that the defendants’ statements did not involve a matter of public concern. Id. at 9–10. The defendants countered on appeal that reports of criminal activity do involve a matter of public concern. Id. at 10–11.

The Appellate Division was convinced that at least defendants’ statements to the BCPO, in which the defendants “allegedly communicated their concerns to a public entity charged with investigating criminal acts, as later illuminated by the motion record to include allegations that the BCPO's failed to investigate properly the purported crime, constitute matters of public concern.” Id. at 18.

New Jersey’s Anti-Slapp statute requires a party to take certain procedural steps to use it effectively. If you are faced with a lawsuit that you feel is meant to hamper your speech, we’d love to help walk you through your options.