Legal Opinion
Cunningham v. Mertz
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 12, 1999PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for prima facie tort, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered July 17, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. The words attributed to the defendants were not “ ‘so outrageous in…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Howell v. New York Post Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. LindnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Curiano v. SuozziNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Fischer v. MaloneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dinio v. OlivarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Sokol v. MarchesanoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Katz v. Laura Katz TrustAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000