Summary
dismissing IIED claim where the defendant allegedly "harassed and ultimately discharged the plaintiff due to her pregnancy"
Summary of this case from Zhengfang Liang v. Cafe Spice SB, Inc.Opinion
April 30, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 18, 1988 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order entered March 3, 1989, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered March 3, 1989 is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action alleged in the complaint is granted, and the order dated October 18, 1988 is modified accordingly.
This case arises out of allegations that the defendants harassed and ultimately discharged the plaintiff due to her pregnancy. While the plaintiff has concededly set forth a viable claim under the Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296) of discriminatory and unfair treatment, she failed to allege "extreme and outrageous" conduct. Hence, the Supreme Court erred in declining to dismiss the second cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In order to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, conduct must be alleged which is "`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, quoting Restatement [Second] of Torts § 46, comment d; see also, Fischer v. Maloney, 43 N.Y.2d 553; Noble v. Creative Tech. Servs., 126 A.D.2d 611; Buffolino v. Long Is. Sav. Bank, 126 A.D.2d 508; Green v. Leibowitz, 118 A.D.2d 756). The law does not compensate one for "threats, annoyances or petty oppressions or other trivial incidents which must necessarily be expected and are incidental to modern life no matter how upsetting" (Lincoln First Bank v Barstro Assocs. Contr., 49 A.D.2d 1025).
In light of this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to address the defendants' other contentions. Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.