From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glashow v. Linden Towers Coop. #4

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 2004
3 A.D.3d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-07227.

Decided January 26, 2004.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated June 14, 2002, as granted those branches of the defendants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Linden Towers Cooperative # 4, Inc., Arlene Fleishman, Eleanor Mishanie, Seymour Albin, Alan Grabkowitz, Leo Janson, Judy Lippel, Marty Dinnerstein, and Al Schulman.

Koppell, Leavitt, Kerson, Leffler Duane, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Paul E. Kerson of counsel), for appellants.

Williamson Williamson, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Richard Ashe and Gabrielle Valente of counsel), for respondents.

Before: WILLIAM F. MASTRO and REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' cause of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution insofar as asserted against the respondents. After the respondents made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they sustained a special injury and whether the respondents acted with malice ( see Sirianni v. Rafaloff, 284 A.D.2d 447; cf. Dudick v. Gulyas, 277 A.D.2d 686; Honzawa v. Honzawa, 268 A.D.2d 327).

The plaintiffs' cause of action to recover damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress was also properly dismissed against the respondents since the plaintiffs failed, after the respondents made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the complained of conduct was "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community" ( Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 303; see Walentas v. Johnes, 257 A.D.2d 352; Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34; Harville v. Lowville Cent. School Dist., 245 A.D.2d 1106; Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 152 A.D.2d 169, 181-182).

ALTMAN, J.P., COZIER, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Glashow v. Linden Towers Coop. #4

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 2004
3 A.D.3d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Glashow v. Linden Towers Coop. #4

Case Details

Full title:STUART GLASHOW, ET AL., appellants, v. LINDEN TOWERS COOPERATIVE #4, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 26, 2004

Citations

3 A.D.3d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
770 N.Y.S.2d 642

Citing Cases

Fontani v. Rosenblum

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The defendant established his prima…