Elbogen v. Esikoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elbogen v. Esikoff

266 A.D.2d 15, 697 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11169

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 4, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 15 (Elbogen v. Esikoff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elbogen v. Esikoff, 266 A.D.2d 15, 697 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered May 1, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendants Lawson, Checkmate and Sterla for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action for harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the second cause of action dismissed.

In this more than 17-year old action, the motion court should have granted the motion of defendants Lawson, Checkmate and Sterla for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the alleged conduct of those defendants satisfied all of the elements of that tort. Specifically, plaintiff has never made an evidentiary showing that the alleged conduct caused any mental or physical symptom or injury that would indicate the existence of severe emotional distress (see, Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 121). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered May 1, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendants Lawson, Checkmate and Sterla for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action for harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the second cause of action dismissed.

In this more than 17-year old action, the motion court should have granted the motion of defendants Lawson, Checkmate and Sterla for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the alleged conduct of those defendants satisfied all of the elements of that tort. Specifically, plaintiff has never made an evidentiary showing that the alleged conduct caused any mental or physical symptom or injury that would indicate the existence of severe emotional distress (see, Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 121). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 15, 697 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elbogen-v-esikoff-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack