Ruiz v. Bertolotti
37 Misc.2d 1067 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for a willful tort exists when a defendant maliciously makes threats to a third party with the clear intent that they be communicated to the plaintiff to cause emotional distress and coerce the plaintiff into surrendering a legal right.
Facts:
- Manuel Ruiz and his wife, who are Puerto Rican, entered into a contract to purchase a house in Massapequa from a builder named Farber.
- The defendant, Bertolotti, learned of the sale and, acting with others, met with Farber.
- Bertolotti expressed anger about "colored persons" moving into the neighborhood.
- Bertolotti threatened bodily harm to Farber, the Ruiz family, and their children if the sale were completed.
- These threats were made with the specific intent that Farber would communicate them to the Ruiz family.
- Farber did communicate the threats to the Ruiz family.
- As a result of the threats, the Ruiz family was put in fear for their personal safety and agreed to rescind the contract of sale.
- The Ruiz family suffered emotional distress and humiliation, and Manuel Ruiz suffered financial losses from having to find another home.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, the Ruiz family, filed a complaint against the defendant, Bertolotti, in a New York trial court.
- The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency, arguing that the alleged facts do not constitute a valid cause of action.
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 complaint state a legally sufficient cause of action for a willful tort where it alleges a defendant made threats of bodily harm to a third party with the intent that the threats be communicated to the plaintiffs to frighten them into rescinding a real estate contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Frank A. Gulotta, J.
Yes, a complaint states a legally sufficient cause of action for a willful tort under these circumstances. This is an action for a willful and malicious tort, the purpose of which was to frighten and distress the plaintiffs into surrendering their legal right to purchase a house. The court analogized this case to others where recovery for intentionally or negligently caused emotional distress was permitted without physical impact, such as in Battalla v. State of New York. The court reasoned that deliberate and malevolent conduct, even if confined to words, is a serious matter requiring legal protection. The fact that the threat was made to an intermediary for communication to the plaintiffs does not diminish its viciousness or illegality; the defendant's intent and the resulting harm are the key elements.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for recognizing a cause of action for an intentional tort based on threats communicated through a third party. It broadens liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress by focusing on the defendant's malicious intent and the foreseeable result, rather than requiring direct communication between the tortfeasor and the victim. The ruling affirms that words alone, when used with malicious intent to cause fear and deprive someone of their rights, are actionable, even in the absence of physical impact. This precedent strengthens protections against harassment and intimidation, particularly in contexts like housing discrimination.
Unlock the full brief for Ruiz v. Bertolotti