Brandt v. Winchell

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: Brandt v. Winchell, 141 N.Y.S.2d 674, 286 A.D. 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 1955)
• Decision Date: 14 June 1955
• Parties: Joseph L. BRANDT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Walter WINCHELL and John H. Teeter, Defendants, Impleaded with Elmer H. Bobst, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 674

141 N.Y.S.2d 674

286 A.D. 249

Joseph L. BRANDT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Walter WINCHELL and John H. Teeter, Defendants, Impleaded with Elmer H. Bobst, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 14, 1955.

Clifton Cooper, New York City, of counsel (E. Raymond Shepard and George Ainsworth, Jr., New York City, with him on the brief; Baldwin, Todd, Herold, Rose & Cooper, New York City, attorneys), for defendant-appellant, Elmer H. Bobst.

Gilbert H. Weil, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent (Alfred T. Lee, Brooklyn, and Kenneth E. Bergin, New York City, with him on the brief).

Before PECK, P. J., and COHN, CALLAHAN, BREITEL and BOTEIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

When the prior complaint was before this Court, 283 App.Div. 338, 127 N.Y.S.2d 865, we dismissed, with leave to replead, indicating the necessity for plaintiff to state by way of separate causes of action what, if any, traditional torts he complained of, and also to allege any prima facie tort by way of a distinct cause of action.

Plaintiff thereupon served the present amended complaint, which is again attacked for insufficiency, this time by defendant Bobst only. The amended complaint proceeds solely on the theory of prima facie tort. As we previously noted, damage is an essential element in a cause of action for prima facie tort and must be pleaded specially, for it consists of injury due to loss in plaintiff's occupation or business. See 283 App.Div. at page 342, 127 N.Y.S.2d at page 867.

The amended complaint alleges only two items of special damage: (1) loss of salary of $200 a week paid plaintiff by Cancer Welfare Fund, Inc., and (2) loss of plaintiff's license to act as a private detective.

On the prior appeal the majority did not consider or discuss possible insulating effects of the injunction issued on complaint of the Attorney General or the action of public officials on plaintiff's damages, for the reason that it was impossible to tell whether such damages would be general or special until plaintiff disclosed whether or not his claims for injury would be based on the traditional torts.

Now that the case involves only the prima facie tort and is limited to special damages, we agree that the injunction judgment obtained by the Attorney General and consented to by plaintiff would be a bar to the claim for loss of salary. The complaint concedes such judgment was obtained. Likewise, the complaint concedes that plaintiff's license as a...