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.
CHINESE CONSOLIDATED BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Maria Chan TSANG, Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered November 25, 1997, which granted plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (7), (b) to dismiss defendant's counterclaims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation and defendant's fifth affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The first counterclaim asserted by defendant, the former principal of plaintiff school, alleging that agents of plaintiffs accused her of taking money belonging to the school, demanded either return of the money or an explanation, and, failing that, threatened to go to the police to seek to have defendant arrested, does not state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the absence of any allegations that the accusation was without reasonable basis or of conduct that went beyond simply making the alleged statements to defendant (see, Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 122, 596 N.Y.S.2d 350, 612 N.E.2d 699; compare, e.g., Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research, 230 A.D.2d 658, 659-660, 661, 646 N.Y.S.2d 795). The second counterclaim for defamation, alleging plaintiffs' statement to a newspaper that “financial records indicated that $60,000 [of the school's funds had been] withdrawn by [defendant] and [plaintiffs] would ask [defendant] for an explanation”, was correctly dismissed based on the withdrawal slips apparently signed by defendant, who does not challenge their authenticity, and which establish the truth of the alleged statement. Finally, plaintiffs' affidavit of service constituted prima facie evidence that defendant had been properly served with the summons and complaint and neither defendant's conclusory denial of service nor her incompetent assertion in the verified answer that plaintiffs had not complied with the mailing requirement of CPLR 308(2), a matter not within her personal knowledge, raised any issue of fact requiring a traverse hearing.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 29, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)