Mitchell v. Giambruno
826 N.Y.S.2d 788, 35 A.D.3d 1040 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sustained, relentless campaign of harassment and intimidation, even if composed of acts that might not be individually actionable, can constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Facts:
- In 1999, Susan Mitchell and Elizabeth Meseck, a same-sex couple, purchased and moved into a house in the Village of Dannemora, becoming neighbors with defendants Michael and Corrine Giambruno and Kimberly Granmoe.
- An initial boundary line dispute arose between Mitchell, Meseck, and the Giambrunos.
- Following the dispute, for approximately two years, the defendants engaged in a relentless campaign of lewd comments and intimidation directed at Mitchell and Meseck and their lifestyle.
- This conduct occurred both in private interactions and in public.
- As a final act, the defendants constructed two mock grave sites on their property, positioned to directly face Mitchell and Meseck's home.
- The mock graves caused Mitchell and Meseck to fear that the graves were intended for them.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Susan Mitchell and Elizabeth Meseck sued defendants Michael Giambruno, Corrine Giambruno, and Kimberly Granmoe in the New York Supreme Court, Clinton County (the trial court of first instance) in November 2002.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding Susan Mitchell $50,000 and Elizabeth Meseck $35,000.
- A judgment was entered upon the jury's verdict on June 3, 2005.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate 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 a relentless two-year campaign of lewd comments, intimidation, and the construction of mock graves directed at a neighboring couple constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Mugglin, J.
Yes. A relentless two-year campaign of harassment and intimidation constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court found that the defendants' conduct satisfied all four elements of the tort. While isolated insulting language may not be sufficient, liability can be established when there is a constant campaign of harassment and intimidation, as occurred here. The court determined that the defendants' conduct was plainly extreme, outrageous, and intentional. Furthermore, the court held that a causal connection between the conduct and the plaintiffs' resulting anxiety, depression, and physical illnesses could be reasonably inferred by a jury from the timing of the events and the escalation of symptoms, even without direct expert medical testimony on causation.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its interpretation of the 'extreme and outrageous' conduct element in intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. It establishes that a pattern of harassing behavior over time can be aggregated to meet this high standard, even if each individual act in isolation might not. The case lowers the barrier for plaintiffs in harassment situations by affirming that they can build a case based on a course of conduct. Additionally, it clarifies that direct expert testimony on causation is not always required if the connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's harm is clear enough for a lay jury to infer from circumstantial evidence, such as the timing of medical treatment and symptoms.
