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

THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIMA FACIE TORT BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE THE SOLE MOTIVATION OF DEFENDANTS WAS DISINETERESTED MALEVOLENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

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

“The requisite elements of a cause of action for prima facie tort are (1) the 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” … .. A plaintiff alleging prima facie tort must therefore allege that the defendant’s “sole motivation was ‘disinterested malevolence’ ” … . … Although the complaint alleges that defendants ” ‘acted maliciously’ and ‘with disinterested malice,’ ” … , it does not allege that defendants’ “sole motivation was ‘disinterested malevolence’ ” … . “There can be no recovery [for prima facie tort] unless a disinterested malevolence to injure [a] plaintiff constitutes the sole motivation for [the] defendant[‘s] otherwise lawful act” … . Spine Surgery of Buffalo Niagara, LLC v Geico Cas. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 07343, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The criteria for prima facie tort include an allegation that the “sole motivation” for a defendant’s conduct was “disinterested malevolence.”

 

You might also like
Defendant’s Motion for DNA Testing Should Have Been Granted
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE TRIABLE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DEFECT IN THE WALKWAY WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER THE DEFECT CAUSED THE SLIP AND FALL.
CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD HAS THE CAPACITY TO SUE AND STANDING TO BRING AN ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S COMPLIANCE WITH POLICE-ACTION-REVIEW PROCEDURES.
Suppression Motion Should Not Have Been Granted, Officers Had “Objective Credible Reason” to Approach.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
Ordinance Prohibiting “Unnecessary Noise” Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague
STATEMENT MADE IN PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION IN THE SAME MATTER TO THE EFFECT NO ONE QUESTIONED THE NUMBER OF HOURS PUT IN BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD WAS DICTA AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED THE LAW OF THE CASE ON REMITTAL; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REDUCED THE NUMBER OF BILLABLE HOURS (FOURTH DEPT).
CROSSING THE CENTER LINE AND TRAVELING IN THE ONCOMING LANE PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE VEHICLE STOP, GRANT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS REVERSED.

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

AN UNRESTRICTED EASEMENT ALLOWING ACCESS TO A LAKE ENCOMPASSES THE RIGHT TO... THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE...