Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Taggart v Costabile

Taggart v Costabile

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department

June 24, 2015, Decided

2012-09132

Opinion

 [*245]  [**390]   Miller, J.

Among the issues presented for our review on this appeal is whether the plaintiffs have stated a cause of action alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress. In order to evaluate this issue it is necessary to consider whether an allegation of extreme and outrageous conduct is an essential element of that cause of action. Although decisions of this Court have, on occasion, included language indicating that it is, we now clarify that extreme and outrageous conduct is not an essential element of a cause of action alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress.

I. Background

The plaintiffs, a married couple, [***2]  owned certain real property located in Haverstraw, Rockland County. The defendants owned the property next door to the plaintiffs' property. The defendants leased their property to tenants, and the plaintiffs resided on their property.

The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants. The complaint set forth four causes of action against the defendants, to recover damages for nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. Notably, the tenants were not named as defendants, and the complaint did not allege any causes of action against them.

The plaintiffs alleged in the complaint that the defendants' tenants "continually breach[ed] the peace and . . . engag[ed]  [*246]  in illegal activity." Specifically, they alleged [**391]  that the defendants' tenants repeatedly hosted large parties at all hours of the night, and that these gatherings caused impediments to the flow of traffic and entailed loud music, public alcohol consumption, and the open use and sale of illegal drugs.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants failed to take any action to remedy the problems created by their tenants despite numerous complaints from the plaintiffs [***3]  and other neighbors, and that police intervention was routinely needed to restore peace to the neighborhood. They alleged that the defendants "intentionally refused to [defuse] the situation" because the [****2]  defendants sought to intimidate the plaintiffs and drive them from their home. They alleged that the defendants "wanted the [plaintiffs'] land" so that they could "build a condominium complex."

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

131 A.D.3d 243 *; 14 N.Y.S.3d 388 **; 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5349 ***; 2015 NY Slip Op 05464 ****

 [****1]  John Taggart et al., Respondents, v Ralph Costabile et al., Appellants. (Index No. 3435/10)

Prior History: Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Thomas E. Walsh II, J.), dated July 31, 2012. The order denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

CORE TERMS

cause of action, tenants, defendants', negligent infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, recover damages, emotional distress, plaintiffs', summary judgment, intruders, private nuisance, cases, essential element, genuineness, outrageous, nuisance, loss of consortium, prima facie, breach of duty, emotional harm, matter of law, mental injury, consequential, intervening, landowner, drugs

Real Property Law, Torts, Nuisance, Elements, Types of Nuisances, Private Nuisances, Torts, Intentional Torts, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Types of Negligence Actions, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Pain & Suffering, Emotional Distress, General Overview, Elements, Duty, Causation, Proximate Cause, Foreseeability of Harm, Intervening Causation, Types of Losses, Loss of Consortium