Starishevsky v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Starishevsky v. Parker

225 A.D.2d 480, 639 N.Y.2d 377, 639 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3090

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 480 (Starishevsky v. Parker) 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

Starishevsky v. Parker, 225 A.D.2d 480, 639 N.Y.2d 377, 639 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff’s allegations, presumed to be true for the purposes of this motion to dismiss, that defendant-appellant unethically counseled a university student to file a sexual harassment claim that appellant knew to be false and that had a direct bearing on the university’s decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment wrongfully (Matter of Starishevsky v Hofstra Univ., 161 Misc 2d 137), that appellant created a hostile atmosphere by divulging confidential harassment proceedings to a newspaper reporter for publication, and that appellant was motivated by a personal vendetta against plaintiff, are sufficient to show that appellant acted solely with disinterested malevolence in seeing plaintiff fired (Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 333). They are accompanied by a particularized claim of special damages in the form of identifiable lost wages and benefits and are sufficient to state a cause of action for prima facie tort (supra, at 332). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Plaintiff’s allegations, presumed to be true for the purposes of this motion to dismiss, that defendant-appellant unethically counseled a university student to file a sexual harassment claim that appellant knew to be false and that had a direct bearing on the university’s decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment wrongfully (Matter of Starishevsky v Hofstra Univ., 161 Misc 2d 137), that appellant created a hostile atmosphere by divulging confidential harassment proceedings to a newspaper reporter for publication, and that appellant was motivated by a personal vendetta against plaintiff, are sufficient to show that appellant acted solely with disinterested malevolence in seeing plaintiff fired (Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 333). They are accompanied by a particularized claim of special damages in the form of identifiable lost wages and benefits and are sufficient to state a cause of action for prima facie tort (supra, at 332). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 480, 639 N.Y.2d 377, 639 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starishevsky-v-parker-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack