Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintiffdefendantdamagesprecedentmotiondiscriminationhuman rightsmotion to dismisspiracy
tortplaintiffdefendantdamagesmotiondiscriminationhuman rightsmotion to dismisspiracy

Related Cases

Aiken v. Business and Industry Health Group, Inc., 885 F.Supp. 1474, 130 Lab.Cas. P 57,996, 10 IER Cases 995
View Case »
Methodist Medical Center of Illinois v. Taylor, 140 Ill.App.3d 713, 489 N.E.2d 351, 95 Ill.Dec. 130
View Case »
Aguinaga v. John Morrell & Co., 112 F.R.D. 671, 124 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2898, 112 Lab.Cas. P 11,310
View Case »
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389, 68 USLW 4263, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3949, 00 CJ C.A.R. 2064, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 225
View Case »
In re Sills Cummis Zuckerman, Radin Tischman Epstein & Gross, 192 N.J. 222, 927 A.2d 1249 (Mem)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, 17 Misc.3d 1105(A), 851 N.Y.S.2d 57 (Table), 2007 WL 2822423, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 51832(U)

Facts

Plaintiff Aaron Brett Charney filed an amended complaint against Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy related to his claims of discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendant moved to dismiss these claims, arguing that the emotional distress claim was duplicative of the HRL claims and that the conspiracy claim lacked a substantive basis under New York law. The court considered the relevant legal standards and precedents in making its decision.

Plaintiff Aaron Brett Charney filed an amended complaint against Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy related to his claims of discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy could survive a motion to dismiss given the existing HRL claims and the lack of a substantive tort of conspiracy under New York law.

The main legal issues were whether the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy could survive a motion to dismiss given the existing HRL claims and the lack of a substantive tort of conspiracy under New York law.

Rule

Under New York law, intentional infliction of emotional distress is only available as a last resort when other theories of recovery do not provide relief, and there is no substantive tort of conspiracy unless it connects to an actionable tort.

Under New York law, intentional infliction of emotional distress is only available as a last resort when other theories of recovery do not provide relief, and there is no substantive tort of conspiracy unless it connects to an actionable tort.

Analysis

The court analyzed the claims in light of previous rulings that established that emotional distress damages are available under HRL claims, thus making the intentional infliction claim potentially duplicative. Additionally, the court noted that conspiracy claims in New York law are only permissible to connect actions of separate defendants with an actionable tort, which was not present in this case due to the dismissal of the underlying tort.

The court analyzed the claims in light of previous rulings that established that emotional distress damages are available under HRL claims, thus making the intentional infliction claim potentially duplicative. Additionally, the court noted that conspiracy claims in New York law are only permissible to connect actions of separate defendants with an actionable tort, which was not present in this case due to the dismissal of the underlying tort.

Conclusion

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to potentially amend his complaint.

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to potentially amend his complaint.

Who won?

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP prevailed in the case because the court found that the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy were either duplicative of existing claims or lacked a substantive basis under New York law.

You must be