Melnik v. Saks & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melnik v. Saks & Co.

292 A.D.2d 430, 738 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2540

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 430 (Melnik v. Saks & Co.) 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

Melnik v. Saks & Co., 292 A.D.2d 430, 738 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated October 18, 2000, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Saks & Company doing business as Saks Fifth Avenue and its employees which were for summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of action and denied her cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of action to recover damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring, respectively, was properly granted. The conduct alleged falls far short of the outrageous and extreme conduct required to sustain a cause of action to recover damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress (see, Andrews v Bruk, 220 AD2d 376). Also, the plaintiff failed to set forth any facts tending to show that Saks & Company doing business as Saks Fifth Avenue (hereinafter Saks) had notice of improper conduct by its employees (see, Ranieri v Lawlor, 211 AD2d 601) and, accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to Saks dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated October 18, 2000, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Saks & Company doing business as Saks Fifth Avenue and its employees which were for summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of action and denied her cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of action to recover damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring, respectively, was properly granted. The conduct alleged falls far short of the outrageous and extreme conduct required to sustain a cause of action to recover damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress (see, Andrews v Bruk, 220 AD2d 376). Also, the plaintiff failed to set forth any facts tending to show that Saks & Company doing business as Saks Fifth Avenue (hereinafter Saks) had notice of improper conduct by its employees (see, Ranieri v Lawlor, 211 AD2d 601) and, accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to Saks dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 430, 738 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melnik-v-saks-co-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack