You are here: / / COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIMA FACIE TORT, ELEMENTS...
,

COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIMA FACIE TORT, ELEMENTS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not state a cause of action for prima facie tort:

“Prima facie tort affords a remedy for the infliction of intentional harm, resulting in damage, without excuse or justification, by an act or a series of acts which would otherwise be lawful” … . “The requisite elements of a cause of action for prima facie tort are (1) intentional infliction of harm, (2) which results in special damages, (3) without any excuse or justification, (4) by an act or series of acts which would otherwise be lawful” … .

Here, the prima facie tort cause of action cannot stand because, although the complaint alleged that defendant “acted maliciously” and “with disinterested malice,” it did not allege that defendant’s “sole motivation was disinterested malevolence’ ” … . In addition, the complaint failed to allege special damages as required … . Finally, the complaint is not “sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action” (CPLR 3013 …). “[A] cause of action cannot be predicated solely on mere conclusory statements . . . unsupported by factual allegations” … . Here, the complaint is devoid of relevant facts, including the time period at issue, the number of forms that defendant requested plaintiff to resubmit, and the number of claims involved. Greater Buffalo Acc. & Injury Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Cas. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 06349, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

You might also like
TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIR OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE ACCRUED, THEREFORE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
Inconsistent Interrogatory Answers Do Not Support A Judgment.
PLAINTIFF WAS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT WITH THE ARCHITECTS; THEREFORE THE ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ACCRUED WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETE, RENDERING THE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
No “Extraordinary Circumstances” Existed to Justify Granting Primary Custody of Child to Grandparents
OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RULING ON WHETHER THE PEOPLE COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS RE: LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCIPLINARY RECORDS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED WITH REVIEWING AN X-RAY OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CHEST ON BEHALF OF DECEDENT’S EMPLOYER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INFORM THE DECEDENT OR HIS PHYSICIAN OF THE CANCER FINDINGS (FOURTH 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

THE SOIL CONSERVATION AND WATERSHED BOARD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT... PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY VIOLATED THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BY DEPOSING...