FATA v. GARNET HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Elena Goldberg Velazquez, J.), dated September 17, 2024, and (2) an order of the same court dated December 11, 2024.  The order dated September 17, 2024, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The order dated December 11, 2024, insofar as appealed from, in effect, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the determination in the order dated September 17, 2024, granting that branch of the defendant's prior motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated September 17, 2024, is dismissed, as the portion of the order appealed from was superseded by the order dated December 11, 2024, made, in effect, upon renewal and reargument;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated December 11, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint.  In an order dated September 17, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The plaintiff moved for leave to renew and reargue his opposition to that branch of the defendant's prior motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.  In an order dated December 11, 2024, the court, inter alia, in effect, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the determination in the order dated September 17, 2024, granting that branch of the defendant's prior motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The plaintiff appeals.

Under New York law, a cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress “has four elements:  (i) extreme and outrageous conduct;  (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress;  (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and injury;  and (iv) severe emotional distress” (Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 121;  see Taggart v. Costabile, 131 AD3d 243, 249).  In this case, the cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress failed as a matter of law, since the complained of conduct was not “ ‘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 Nachbar v. Cornwall Yacht Club, 160 AD3d 972, 973).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to its determination granting that branch of the defendant's prior motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

DILLON, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.