Legal Opinion
Andrews v. Bruk
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 25, 1994PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Bernard F. McCaffrey, J.
The critical issue involved in this matter is the applicability of one of the least utilized and understood doctrines of law— the tort of intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.
At the outset, it should be noted that the intentional infliction of emotional distress is a separate independent tort to be distinguished from prima facie tort which is more of a "catchall” designed to provide a remedy where no traditional tort is available (Curiano v Suozzi, 63 NY2d 113 [1984]).
Although plaintiff in this instance has not done so, there are…
2Cases cited18 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
- Curiano v. SuozziNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Fischer v. MaloneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Arrington v. New York Times Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- MaGee v. Paul Revere Life InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1997
- Waldron v. Ball Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- York v. Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1994