Curiano v. Suozzi
63 N.Y.2d 113, 480 N.Y.S.2d 466, 469 N.E.2d 1324 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for prima facie tort cannot be based on the malicious institution of a prior civil action that is still pending. The proper remedy for a baseless lawsuit is an action for malicious prosecution, which requires that the prior action be terminated in the claimant's favor.
Facts:
- A group of government officials, including the plaintiffs, published campaign literature opposing the reelection of defendant Joseph A. Suozzi's brother as Mayor of Glen Cove.
- The literature alleged that Suozzi, a former Appellate Division Justice, had engaged in a speculative real estate transaction and profited from decisions made by his brother while Suozzi was still a judge.
- In response to these allegations, Suozzi and his law firm (the defendants) instituted a libel action, captioned Suozzi v. Parente, against the plaintiffs.
- While the Suozzi v. Parente libel action was still pending, the plaintiffs in that case initiated the present action against Suozzi.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued defendants, asserting causes of action for defamation and prima facie tort.
- The trial court (Special Term) dismissed the defamation claim but denied defendants' motion to dismiss the prima facie tort claim.
- Defendants appealed the denial of their motion to the intermediate appellate court (the Appellate Division).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order and granted the motion to dismiss the prima facie tort claim, characterizing it as a failed abuse of process claim.
- Plaintiffs (as appellants) then appealed the dismissal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New York law permit a cause of action for prima facie tort based on the alleged malicious institution of a prior civil action that has not yet been terminated?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, J.
No. A claim for prima facie tort is not available as a remedy for the malicious institution of a prior, pending civil action. First, the plaintiffs' claim cannot be sustained as an action for abuse of process. Abuse of process requires not only a malicious motive but also an improper use of legal process after it has been issued to obtain a collateral objective, and the mere issuance of a summons to start a lawsuit does not constitute the requisite unlawful interference with person or property. Second, the claim fails as a prima facie tort because it is essentially a claim for malicious prosecution, and it seeks to circumvent the stricter requirements of that traditional tort. The tort of malicious prosecution requires, among other elements, that the prior proceeding has terminated in the plaintiff's favor, which has not occurred here. Allowing a prima facie tort claim in these circumstances would undermine the public policy of ensuring open access to the courts by creating a chilling effect, where parties would fear retaliatory lawsuits. Prima facie tort cannot be used as a 'catch-all' alternative for a traditional tort claim that is otherwise unavailable.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the boundaries between prima facie tort and malicious prosecution, preventing the former from being used as a substitute for the latter. The court strongly affirms the public policy of protecting access to courts, even at the risk of some baseless litigation, by setting a high bar for retaliatory lawsuits. By requiring plaintiffs to await the favorable termination of the underlying action before bringing a claim for malicious prosecution, the court prevents an endless cycle of litigation where each party sues the other for filing the previous suit. The ruling ensures that prima facie tort remains a remedy of last resort for harms that fall outside the contours of traditional torts, rather than a tool to bypass their specific requirements.
