From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riet v. Marion Court Equities Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 15, 1996
229 A.D.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

July 15, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The circumstances under which recovery may be had for purely emotional harm are extremely limited, and, thus a cause of action seeking such recovery must generally be premised upon a breach of a duty owed directly to the plaintiff which either endangered the plaintiff's physical safety or caused the plaintiff to fear for his or her own physical safety (see, e.g., Bovsun v. Sanperi, 61 N.Y.2d 219; Lancellotti v. Howard, 155 A.D.2d 588). In this case, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the foregoing standard.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in restoring the action to the trial calendar on the condition that the plaintiff's attorney pay the sum of $250 to each defendant (cf., Lee v. Chion, 213 A.D.2d 602). Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Riet v. Marion Court Equities Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 15, 1996
229 A.D.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Riet v. Marion Court Equities Corp.

Case Details

Full title:IDILA RIET, Appellant, v. MARION COURT EQUITIES CORPORATION et al.…

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

Date published: Jul 15, 1996

Citations

229 A.D.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
644 N.Y.S.2d 996

Citing Cases

Moliterno v. Comm. Gen. Hosp. of Sullivan Co.

It was undisputed that the plaintiff did not suffer any physical harm during the incident, nor did Taylor…

Broadnax v. Gonzalez

Further, the plaintiffs may not recover under a zone of danger theory (see Tebbutt v. Virostek, supra at…