Legal Opinion
Clark v. Elam Sand & Gravel, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 19, 2004PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*295OPINION OF THE COURT
Craig J. Doran, J.
Defendants in the above-captioned action move to dismiss the amended complaint herein pursuant to CPLR 3211 on the grounds that the amended complaint fails to state any causes of action as a matter of law.
This action seeks money damages and alleges that the plaintiff was an employee of defendant Elam Sand and Gravel, Inc., of which defendant David Spallina is president. The amended complaint attempts to state two separate causes of action for infliction of emotional distress, and demands compensatory and punitive damages. The first cause of action is…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Howell v. New York Post Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Dana v. Oak Park Marina, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Fern v. International Business Machines Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Greenfield v. SchultzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Matthews v. MalkusDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- Clark v. Elem Sand & Gravel, Inc.New York Supreme Court, Ontario County · 2004
- Teko Foll v. Metro-North Railroad and Metro-North MTA PoliceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2026