You are here: / / UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES...
, ,

UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBEL PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION.

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s awards of damages (upon defendant’s default) for libel per se and abuse of process, as well as punitive damages and attorney’s fees. The Third Department determined the causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of privacy were not viable, and Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue an order of protection. Plaintiff alleged defendant had contacted his employers making false allegations and had initiated many actions against him raising issues already litigated. With respect to intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of privacy, and the order of protection, the court explained:

A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be entertained “where the conduct complained of falls well within the ambit of other traditional tort liability” … . Here, plaintiff’s complaint incorporated his libel and abuse of process allegations as the basis for this cause of action. Because damages were awarded on those causes of action, the damages awarded on the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be vacated.

A cause of action for violation of the right to privacy under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and [*4]51 is “strictly limited to nonconsensual commercial appropriations of the name, portrait or picture of a living person” … . Absent from the proof furnished by plaintiff was any indication that defendant sought to use his name or photograph “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade only” … . Therefore, Supreme Court should have determined that this was not a viable cause of action. …

Supreme Court can properly issue an order of protection in a matrimonial action under Domestic Relations Law §§ 240, 252 … ; here, no matrimonial action was pending. Although such an order is available under Family Ct Act article 8, the pleadings do not contain allegations of conduct that would constitute one of certain enumerated family offenses … . Xiaokang Xu v Xioling Shirley He, 2017 NY Slip Op 01412, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

 

DEFAMATION (UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBLE PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION)/LIBEL PER SE (UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBLE PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION)/ABUSE OF PROCESS (UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBLE PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION)/PRIVACY, VIOLATION OF (UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBLE PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION)/INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBLE PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION)/ORDER OF PROTECTION (UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBLE PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION)

You might also like
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, EVIDENCE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SEE THE CAR HE COLLIDED WITH AND FAILED TO TIMELY BRAKE IS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR A CRIMINALLLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION; THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS PRESERVED BY A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE AND RULED ON AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S CASE; THE “LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT” VERSUS “AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE” STANDARDS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
Employer’s Claim for Reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for Death Benefits Paid Re: an Employee Who Died from Dust Disease Time-Barred—Even Though the Injury to the Employee Predated the Last Date for Such Claims, the Death Occurred After the Statutory Cut-Off Date
Because the Presence of THC Can Be Detected Long After Marijuana Use, the People Were Not Able to Prove Defendant Used Marijuana During a One-Week Furlough
Because the Statute Relied Upon by the State Police to Deny a FOIL Request Did Not Pertain to the Sought Documents, the Request Should Have Been Granted/Court Cannot Substitute Another Ground for Denial
THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT LIMITED THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO ONLY “SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES;” USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS THROUGH AIRBNB VIOLATES THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT (THIRD DEPT).
Grant of Writ of Prohibition Reversed—Criteria for Writ Explained
DEFENDANT SHOT ANOTHER HUNTER AND WAS CHARGED WITH AND CONVICTED OF (RECKLESS) ASSAULT SECOND, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION ON (NEGLIGENT) ASSAULT THIRD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
THE LAW REQUIRING THAT SEX OFFENDERS CANNOT RESIDE WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL GROUNDS IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EVEN AS APPLIED TO AN OFFENDER WHOSE SEX OFFENSES INVOLVED ADULTS (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A SEXUAL OFFENSE WHICH DEFENDANT ADMITTED COMMITTING BUT WITH WHICH HE WAS NEVER... WIFE ENTITLED TO A PERCENTAGE OF HUSBAND’S ENHANCED EARNING CAPACITY BY...