School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz
20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1488, 771 N.Y.S.2d 804, 3 Misc. 3d 278 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Sending a large volume of unsolicited electronic communications constitutes a trespass to chattels if the communications cause tangible harm to the recipient's computer system, such as depleting hard disk space or draining processing power.
Facts:
- Diane Kuprewicz, a former employee of the School of Visual Arts (SVA), allegedly engaged in a harassment campaign against SVA and Laurie Pearlberg, SVA's Director of Human Resources.
- Kuprewicz allegedly posted two false job listings on Craigslist for Pearlberg's position, which was not vacant, directing applicants to contact Pearlberg's supervisor.
- Kuprewicz also allegedly sent a fraudulent email to SVA's Human Resources department formatted to appear as a job posting for Pearlberg's position from Monster.com.
- Kuprewicz allegedly provided Pearlberg's SVA email address to various pornographic websites, resulting in Pearlberg receiving large volumes of unwanted sexually explicit emails.
- Kuprewicz was also allegedly responsible for Pearlberg receiving pornographic mail-order catalogs at her work address and for sending pornographic e-cards to her work email.
- SVA alleged that the large volume of unsolicited job applications and pornographic emails depleted hard disk space, drained processing power, and adversely affected other resources on its computer system.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs School of Visual Arts (SVA) and Laurie Pearlberg sued defendant Diane Kuprewicz in a New York trial court.
- The complaint included six causes of action: two Lanham Act violations, defamation and trade libel, violation of Civil Rights Law, trespass to chattels, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against the defendant.
- Defendant Kuprewicz filed a cross-motion to dismiss the entire complaint for failure to state a 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 sending large volumes of unsolicited emails that deplete hard disk space and drain the processing power of the recipient's computer system state a legally valid claim for trespass to chattels under New York law?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosalyn Richter
Yes. A party states a valid claim for trespass to chattels by alleging that another intentionally caused a large volume of electronic communications to be sent to its computer system without consent, and that these communications caused physical harm to the system. To establish trespass to chattels, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant intentionally interfered with their personal property, without consent, causing harm. SVA sufficiently alleged harm by claiming the large volume of unsolicited emails 'depleted hard disk space, drained processing power, and adversely affected other system resources.' This distinguishes the case from precedents like Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, where no physical damage or functional disruption occurred. The court clarified that its holding is based on the alleged physical damage to SVA's computer systems caused by the volume of emails, not on the pornographic content of those emails. The court dismissed the other claims, including defamation (as merely announcing a job is vacant does not impute professional incompetence) and Lanham Act violations (as the defendant's conduct was not a 'commercial use in commerce').
Analysis:
This case is a significant application of the traditional common law tort of trespass to chattels to the digital realm. It establishes that electronic communications, like emails, can constitute a physical interference with property if they tangibly impair the functionality of computer hardware. The decision provides a legal avenue for victims of high-volume, unsolicited electronic messages ('spam' or electronic harassment) to seek remedy by focusing on the harm to computer resources rather than the content of the messages. This precedent affirmed that the digital world is not a lawless space and that old legal principles can be adapted to protect property rights against new forms of intrusion.
