Curiano v. Suozzi

• Decision Date: 21 June 1984
• Citation: 477 N.Y.S.2d 13,63 N.Y.2d 113,102 A.D.2d 759
• Parties: Robert CURIANO, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Joseph SUOZZI, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 13

477 N.Y.S.2d 13

102 A.D.2d 759

Robert CURIANO, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v.Joseph SUOZZI, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

June 21, 1984.

R.E. Steinberg, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.

B.M. Seltzer, Mineola, for defendants-appellants.

Before ROSS, J.P., and BLOOM, LYNCH, MILONAS and KASSAL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County entered January 13, 1984, which, inter alia, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the second cause of action, is unanimously reversed on the law to the extent appealed from and the motion to dismiss the second cause of action is granted without prejudice to plaintiffs to apply in Special Term within 20 days from the date of the order herein, for leave to replead, with costs and disbursements.

The second cause of action herein seeks damages for defendants' purported abuse of process (a prima facie tort) resulting from the commencement and prosecution of a prior defamation action by defendantJoseph Suozzi through his attorneys, defendantSuozzi, English & Cianciulli, P.C., against plaintiffs.It is plaintiffs' contention that the defamation action in question was not instituted for a legitimate purpose but was intended solely to punish defendants, inhibit their right of free speech and cause them the distress and expense of defending a lawsuit.Plaintiffs do not claim that defendants misused any process after the action was brought, simply that the motive for the suit was malicious.However, a malicious motive alone does not give rise to a cause of action for abuse of process.(Dean v. Kochendorfer, 237 N.Y. 384, 143 N.E. 229;Widger v. Central School District No. 1, 20 A.D.2d 296, 247 N.Y.S.2d 364.)As the court declared in Miller v. Stern, 262 App.Div. 5, at p. 7, 27 N.Y.S.2d 374: "It has repeatedly been held that the mere institution of a civil action which has occasioned a party trouble, inconvenience and the expense of defending, will not support an action for abuse of process....Public policy requires that parties be permitted to avail themselves of the courts to settle their grievances and that they may do so without unnecessary exposure to a suit for damages in the event of an unsuccessful prosecution."(See alsoScully v. Genesee Milk Producer's Cooperative, Inc., 78 A.D.2d 982, 434 N.Y.S.2d 48)A valid cause of action for abuse of process requires that there be "an unlawful interference with one's...