Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998

Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Ass'n v. Maria Chan Tsang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 29, 1998

254 A.D.2d 222; 679 N.Y.S.2d 54; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11411

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Reeves v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Karl Reeves, C.E.I.N.Y. Corp. v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Karl Reeves, C.E.I.N.Y. Corp. v. ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS, LTD (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Reem Contracting v. Altschul & Altschul (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Reem Contracting v. Altschul & Altschul (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Muhlhahn v. Goldman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Beth Abraham Health Services v. Eccleston-Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Kamalian v. Reader's Digest Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Time Warner City Cable v. Tri State Auto, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered November 25, 1997, which granted plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) and (b) to dismiss defendant’s counterclaims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation and defendant’s fifth affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The first counterclaim asserted by defendant, the former principal of plaintiff school, alleging that agents of plaintiffs accused her of taking money belonging to the school, demanded either return of the money or an explanation, and, failing that, threatened to go to the police to seek to have defendant arrested, does not state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the absence of any allegations that the accusation was without reasonable basis or of conduct that went beyond simply making the alleged statements to defendant (see, Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 122; compare, e.g., Vasarhelyi v New School for Social Research, 230 AD2d 658, 659-660, 661). The second counterclaim for defamation, alleging plaintiffs’ statement to a newspaper that “financial records indicated that $60,000.00 [of the school’s funds had been] withdrawn by [defendant], and [plaintiffs *223would] ask [defendant] for an explanation”, was correctly dismissed based on the withdrawal slips apparently signed by defendant, who does not challenge their authenticity, and which establish the truth of the alleged statement. Finally, plaintiffs’ affidavit of service constituted prima facie evidence -that defendant had been properly served with the summons and complaint and neither defendant’s conclusory denial of service nor her incompetent assertion in the verified answer that plaintiffs had not complied with the mailing requirement of CPLR 308 (2), a matter not within her personal knowledge, raised any issue of fact requiring a traverse hearing. Concur— Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.