Misek-Falkoff v. International Business Machines Corp.

162 A.D.2d 211, 556 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7265
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 14, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 211 (Misek-Falkoff v. International Business Machines Corp.) 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
Misek-Falkoff v. International Business Machines Corp., 162 A.D.2d 211, 556 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Vincent Gurahian, J.), entered on April 12, 1989, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks recovery for infliction of emotional distress based upon various acts committed by International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) employees. The majority of these acts occurred more than one year prior to commencement of this action. Those which occurred within a year prior to commencement of the action were the placement of plaintiff on medical disability, and the refusal to release certain personal records allegedly belonging to the plaintiff but stored in IBM computer files. The latter claim is also apparently the subject of another pending action.

The motion court properly applied a one-year Statute of Limitations to the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Gallagher v Directors Guild, 144 AD2d 261). Excluding those alleged acts which were beyond the limitations period, the complaint was properly dismissed. Viewing the allegations of the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff, the conduct alleged was not so egregious as to sustain the cause of action (Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293). Absent concrete factual allegations of a continuing conspiracy or concerted course of action against plaintiff, we need not reach the issue of whether, if properly pleaded, the acts more remote in time could be considered actionable as part of a "continuing” tort. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

Estreicher v. Oner
2017 NY Slip Op 1844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Misek-Falkoff v. McDonald
177 F. Supp. 2d 224 (S.D. New York, 2001)
Reich v. Reich
239 A.D.2d 246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Tarr v. Credit Suisse Asset Management, Inc.
958 F. Supp. 785 (E.D. New York, 1997)
Wolff v. City of New York Financial Services Agency
939 F. Supp. 258 (S.D. New York, 1996)
Stram v. Farrell
223 A.D.2d 260 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Neufeld v. Neufeld
910 F. Supp. 977 (S.D. New York, 1996)
Bonner v. Guccione
916 F. Supp. 271 (S.D. New York, 1996)
Drury v. Tucker
210 A.D.2d 891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Misek-Falkoff v. International Business MacHines Corp.
854 F. Supp. 215 (S.D. New York, 1994)
Kelber v. Forest Electric Corp.
799 F. Supp. 326 (S.D. New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 A.D.2d 211, 556 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/misek-falkoff-v-international-business-machines-corp-nyappdiv-1990.