Lincoln First Bank of Rochester v. Barstro & Associates Contracting, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1975 |
| Citation | 374 N.Y.S.2d 485,49 A.D.2d 1025 |
| Parties | LINCOLN FIRST BANK OF ROCHESTER, Respondent, v. BARSTRO & ASSOCIATES CONTRACTING, INC., et al., Defendants, W. Kramer Cuddy, III, and Roberta H. Cuddy, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
W. K. Cuddy, III, Montour Falls, for appellants.
Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Francis E. Kenny, Rochester, for respondent.
Before MARSH, P.J., and MOULE, CARDAMONE, SIMONS and DEL VECCHIO, JJ.
Special Term properly considered all of the 'contested' matters which were relevant to its determination (CPLR 3211(c)) and correctly granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaim on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211(a)) for either prima facie tort or the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff's actions in allegedly threatening to encourage the Internal Revenue Service to act against defendant personally unless he gave plaintiff bank additional security were motivated by an intention to secure an economic benefit and were not solely intended to injure defendant in his trade, occupation, professional reputation or property (Squire Records v. Vanguard Recording Soc., 25 A.D.2d 190, 268 N.Y.S.2d 251, affd., 19 N.Y.2d 797, 279 N.Y.S.2d 737, 226 N.E.2d 542). Further, plaintiff's single action falls far short of the pattern of conduct in those cases which held claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress legally sufficient (contrast, Nader v. General Motors Corp., 25 N.Y.2d 560, 307 N.Y.S.2d 647, 255 N.E.2d 765; Long v. Beneficial Finance Co., 39 A.D.2d 11, 330 N.Y.S.2d 664; Prince v. Gurvitz, 37 A.D.2d 727, 323 N.Y.S.2d 861).
The law does not fasten liability on mere threats, annoyances or petty oppressions of other trivial incidents which must necessarily be expected and are incidental to modern life no matter how upsetting. It is only where the conduct complained of is of such a character as to exceed all reasonable bounds of decency that the law will recognize it as an actionable tort (Restatement, Torts, 2d, § 46).
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mcnamee v. Clemens
...and are incidental to modern life no matter how upsetting’ ”) ( citing Lincoln First Bank of Rochester v. Barstro & Associates Contracting, Inc., 49 A.D.2d 1025, 1025–26, 374 N.Y.S.2d 485 (4th Dep't 1975)); Shapiro, 2006 WL 6091599, at *2 (while the “campaign of harassment and malicious rem......
-
Lightman v. Flaum
...571 N.Y.S.2d 25, lv. to appeal denied 79 N.Y.2d 751, 579 N.Y.S.2d 651, 587 N.E.2d 289; Lincoln First Bank of Rochester v. Barstro & Associates Contracting, Inc., 49 A.D.2d 1025, 374 N.Y.S.2d 485.) Intent or recklessness is an essential element of the cause of In our case, plaintiff contends......
-
Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of New York
...A.D.2d 504, 507, 414 N.Y.S.2d 398; also, Belanoff v. Grayson, 98 A.D.2d 353, 355, 471 N.Y.S.2d 91; Lincoln First Bank of Rochester v. Barstro & Assoc. Contr., 49 A.D.2d 1025, 374 N.Y.S.2d 485); rather, it must exceed "all bounds usually tolerated by decent society" (Fischer v. Maloney, 43 N......
-
Mubarez v. State, 62487
...may be upsetting, it does not rise to the level the law recognizes to impose liability (Lincoln First Bank of Rochester v. Barstro & Associates Contracting, Inc., 49 A.D.2d 1025, 374 N.Y.S.2d 485). Accordingly, this action is similarly dismissed. The last cause of action is on behalf of the......