Flamm v. Van Nierop
56 Misc.2d 1059, 291 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1406 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress arises when a defendant engages in a deliberate and malicious campaign of harassment or intimidation, the conduct of which is so extreme and outrageous that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency.
Facts:
- Beginning in October 1966, Van Nierop repeatedly engaged in a series of harassing actions against Flamm.
- In various public places, Van Nierop would dash at Flamm in a threatening manner, making threatening gestures, grimaces, and leers.
- Van Nierop frequently drove his automobile dangerously close behind Flamm's vehicle.
- Van Nierop would persistently walk closely behind, beside, or in front of Flamm on public streets.
- Van Nierop constantly telephoned Flamm's home and business, only to hang up or remain silent on the line.
- These acts were allegedly done maliciously with the purpose of causing Flamm physical and mental damage.
- As a result of Van Nierop's conduct, Flamm suffered severe mental and emotional distress, sleeplessness, and physical debilitation.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Flamm, filed a complaint against the defendant, Van Nierop, in the trial court.
- The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the first two causes of action in the complaint, arguing they were insufficient in law (i.e., failed to state a valid claim).
- The trial court is now deciding whether to grant or deny the defendant's motion to dismiss.
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 a deliberate and malicious pattern of harassment—including threatening gestures, vehicular intimidation, and repeated silent telephone calls—constitute conduct so extreme and outrageous as to state a cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - John J. Dillon, J.
Yes. A malicious pattern of harassment, intimidation, and threatening behavior can constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court adopts the test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46, which distinguishes actionable 'extreme and outrageous' conduct from mere 'trifles' like name-calling or angry looks for which the law provides no remedy. While individual acts might be minor, a cumulative campaign of being 'perpetually haunted by an enemy'—subjected to baleful looks, sorties short of physical contact, derisive laughter, vehicular threats, and silent phone calls—rises to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct. The court draws an analogy to the concept of cruelty in matrimonial actions, where non-physical conduct intended to break down a person's health is actionable. Therefore, assuming the plaintiff can prove his allegations, the complaint successfully states a cause of action.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for formally recognizing a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a pattern of harassing conduct, even in the absence of physical contact or defamatory statements. It establishes that the cumulative effect of a series of acts can be 'extreme and outrageous,' thereby providing a remedy for victims of stalking and psychological intimidation. This precedent broadens the scope of tort law to protect emotional and mental well-being from deliberate, malicious attacks, influencing how future courts evaluate claims of harassment and bullying.
