Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Gordon SCLAR and Anita Sclar, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FAYETTEVILLE-MANLIUS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Jane Doe, and John Doe, Defendants-Respondents.
Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages allegedly resulting from a report made by defendants pursuant to Social Services Law § 413 of suspected educational neglect by plaintiffs of their 13-year-old daughter. Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Pursuant to Social Services Law § 419, defendants are entitled to immunity from liability for their good faith compliance with the reporting requirements of section 413, and plaintiffs failed to present sufficient factual allegations that defendants were motivated by actual malice in making the report (see Escalera v. Favaro, 298 A.D.2d 552, 749 N.Y.S.2d 263; Kubik v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 244 A.D.2d 606, 609, 664 N.Y.S.2d 365; Miller v. Beck, 82 A.D.2d 912, 913, 440 N.Y.S.2d 691). In any event, with respect to the causes of action for slander and libel, plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to defeat the qualified privilege protecting defendants' statements (see Christenson v. Gutman, 249 A.D.2d 805, 807, 671 N.Y.S.2d 835; Miller, 82 A.D.2d at 913, 440 N.Y.S.2d 691). Plaintiffs also failed to allege conduct sufficiently outrageous in character to support the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see Harville v. Lowville Cent. School Dist., 245 A.D.2d 1106, 667 N.Y.S.2d 175, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 808, 678 N.Y.S.2d 594, 700 N.E.2d 1230) or conduct that endangered their physical safety or caused them to fear for their physical safety to support the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (see Andrewski v. Devine, 280 A.D.2d 992, 993, 720 N.Y.S.2d 423). Plaintiffs have abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of the cause of action alleging that defendants filed a false instrument (see Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745). Finally, plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages do not survive the dismissal of the substantive causes of action (see Andrewski, 280 A.D.2d at 993, 720 N.Y.S.2d 423).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 30, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)