Opinion
2017–02341 Index No. 1018/16
09-19-2018
Michael YUAN MIN CHEN, appellant, v. DEHJUNG DEBORAH WANG, respondent.
Michael Yuan Min Chen, Flushing, NY, appellant pro se. Soffey & Soffey LLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Douglas M. Soffey and Joseph E. Soffey of counsel), for respondent.
Michael Yuan Min Chen, Flushing, NY, appellant pro se.
Soffey & Soffey LLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Douglas M. Soffey and Joseph E. Soffey of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., BETSY BARROS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for prima facie tort, private nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and, in effect, negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), dated January 25, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In January 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, his former wife, alleging prima facie tort, private nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and, in effect, negligent infliction of emotional distress. All of the allegations supporting the causes of action stem from the parties' acrimonious divorce, which was finalized in May 2016.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ). The plaintiff's evidence does not support a meritorious cause of action alleging either prima facie tort (see Ahmed Elkoulily, M.D., P.C., v. New York State Catholic Healthplan, Inc., 153 A.D.3d 768, 61 N.Y.S.3d 83 ; Trulio v. Village of Ossining, 153 A.D.3d 577, 59 N.Y.S.3d 449 ), or private nuisance (see Berland v. Chi, 142 A.D.3d 1121, 38 N.Y.S.3d 57 ; Taggart v. Costabile, 131 A.D.3d 243, 14 N.Y.S.3d 388 ). Further, New York does not recognize a cause of action alleging the intentional infliction of emotional distress between spouses or former spouses based upon allegations of events that occurred during the marriage (see Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer, 6 N.Y.3d 94, 100 n 2, 810 N.Y.S.2d 96, 843 N.E.2d 723 ; Sareen v. Sareen, 51 A.D.3d 765, 858 N.Y.S.2d 285 ; Nacson v. Semmel, 292 A.D.2d 432, 738 N.Y.S.2d 888 ). In any event, the conduct complained of does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous behavior required for a valid claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (see Video Voice, Inc. v. Local T.V., Inc., 156 A.D.3d 848, 68 N.Y.S.3d 475 ; Brunache v. MV Transp., Inc., 151 A.D.3d 1011, 59 N.Y.S.3d 37 ).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
BALKIN, J.P., BARROS, IANNACCI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.