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.
Darryl WARNER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gale DRUCKIER, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Kevin Walker, Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered May 15, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by appellants' brief, denied defendants' motion to dismiss insofar as it sought dismissal of plaintiff's first and fifth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court properly found that plaintiff's allegations, that defendants, through various specified acts, deliberately, systematically and maliciously harassed him over a period of years so as to injure him in his capacity as a tenant, properly stated a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see, Green v. Fischbein Olivieri Rozenholc & Badillo, 119 A.D.2d 345, 349-350, 507 N.Y.S.2d 148). We perceive no merit to defendants' contention that plaintiff's cause for intentional infliction of emotional distress is duplicative of other causes in his complaint or that the allegations of the cause would be more appropriately asserted under the rubric of a different tort. Also proper was the motion court's conclusion that plaintiff had adequately stated a cause of action for unlawful arrest/imprisonment premised on his allegations that defendant Druckier “instigated” his arrest with knowledge that there was no lawful basis therefor (see, Donnelly v. Morace, 162 A.D.2d 247, 248, 556 N.Y.S.2d 605; Barnes v. Bollhorst, 14 A.D.2d 774, 219 N.Y.S.2d 916), and took an active role in plaintiff's prosecution by encouraging or importuning the authorities to act, with the intent to confine him (cf., Celnick v. Freitag, 242 A.D.2d 436, 437, 662 N.Y.S.2d 37).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: November 04, 1999
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)