Foley v. Mobil Chemical Co.

• Decision Date: 28 April 1995
• Docket Number: No. 1,1
• Citation: 626 N.Y.S.2d 906,214 A.D.2d 1003
• Parties: Ramona L. FOLEY, Respondent, v. MOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Jose Calle, Wayne Mast and Paul Miller, Appellants. Appeal
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 906

626 N.Y.S.2d 906

214 A.D.2d 1003

Ramona L. FOLEY, Respondent, v. MOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Jose Calle, Wayne Mast and Paul Miller, Appellants. Appeal No. 1.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

April 28, 1995.

Steven E. Malone, Victor, for appellant--Jose Calle.

Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber, Rochester (Mark L. Suher, of counsel), for appellant--Wayne Mast.

Osborn, Reed, Burke & Tobin by Alice Messina, Thomas C. Burke, Rochester, for appellant--Paul Miller.

Merkel and Merkel by Hilary McMillan, Rochester (David A. Merkel, of counsel), for respondent.

Before FALLON, J.P., and WESLEY, DOERR, BALIO and BOEHM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION:

Supreme Court should have granted the motions of defendants Mast, Miller and Calle to dismiss plaintiff's causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. On February 23, 1993, plaintiff commenced an action against those and other defendants, alleging violations of the Human Rights Law (Executive Law art. 15). Plaintiff alleged that defendants sexually harassed and discriminated against her. Summary judgment motions by Mast and Miller, who sought to dismiss plaintiff's claims against them on the ground that they were not "employers" within the meaning of the Human Rights Law, were granted. In its order granting summary judgment to Mast and Miller, the court also granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to assert common-law torts against defendants.

On August 2, 1993, plaintiff commenced a second action against Mast, Miller and Calle, alleging causes of action against all three defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress, against Miller for slander, and against Calle for battery. On November 5, 1993, plaintiff amended her complaint in the first action to include the causes of action alleged in the second action. Mast, Miller and Calle moved to dismiss both actions on the ground that the intentional tort causes of action were time barred pursuant to CPLR 215(3). They further asserted that the conduct that occurred within one year of the commencement of the first action was insufficient to support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court denied their motions. That was error.

CPLR 215(3) provides a one-year Statute of Limitations for intentional torts, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander and battery (Goldner v. Sullivan, Gough, Skipworth, Summers & Smith, 105 A.D.2d 1149, 482 N.Y.S.2d 606). Plaintiff's first action was commenced on February 23, 1993, and an amended complaint in the first action was served on November 5, 1993. The second action was commenced on August 2, 1993. Because the causes of action in the amended complaint allege the same transactions and occurrences set forth in the first complaint, they are deemed to have been interposed on February 23, 1993, the date of the original pleading (see, CPLR 203[f]. Thus, for purposes of Statute of Limitations, plaintiff's causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander and battery are deemed to have been interposed on February 23, 1993. Any intentional acts alleged in the complaints that occurred before February 23, 1992 are time barred.

Plaintiff asserts that the causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress allege continuing wrongs and that, if any of the alleged intentional acts occurred within the period of limitations, prior acts are not time barred. We disagree. A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is limited to conduct that occurred within the one-year period immediately preceding the commencement of the action (Weisman v. Weisman, 108 A.D.2d 853, 485 N.Y.S.2d 570; see also, Koster v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 609 F.Supp. 1191, 1198). To hold otherwise "would subject defendants to never-ending liability for such claims, which could at any time be triggered by non-extreme, non-outrageous, and non-tortious acts. Merely alleging that such non-actionable conduct was an extension of actionable conduct would resurrect stale time-barred conduct. Such a result would be fundamentally foreign to the purpose of statutes of limitations" (Marshall v. Nelson Elec., 766 F.Supp. 1018, 1032, affd. 999 F.2d 547).

Plaintiff's reliance on Summers v. County of Monroe, 147 A.D.2d 949, 537...