FONTANI v. ROSENBLUM (2006)

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated November 22, 2004, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that his failure to include the second page of a prior court order as part of his submissions to the court in a separate action did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct necessary to support a cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see e.g. Mazzacone v. Corlies Assoc., 21 A.D.3d 1066, 802 N.Y.S.2d 182;  Levy v. Grandone, 14 A.D.3d 660, 789 N.Y.S.2d 291;  Glashow v. Linden Towers Coop. # 4, 3 A.D.3d 550, 770 N.Y.S.2d 642;  Liranzo v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 300 A.D.2d 548, 752 N.Y.S.2d 568).   In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718;  Mazzacone v. Corlies Assoc., supra;  Harper v. Farensbach, 8 A.D.3d 341, 777 N.Y.S.2d 711;  Glashow v. Linden Towers Coop. # 4, supra ).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.