Abeles v. Mellon Bank Corp.
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Chimarev v. TD Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
- Richards v. City of New York Comptroller (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Minovici v. Belkin BV (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Minovici v. Belkin BV (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Peterec-Tolino v. Harap (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Bailey v. New York Westchester Square Medical Centre (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- A. Brod, Inc. v. Worldwide Dreams, L.L.C. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 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
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered June 27, 2001, which, upon the prior grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff’s cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress could have been dismissed on the alternative ground that plaintiff was an at-will employee terminable from her position at any time and for any reason, or even for no reason at all, and was thus without recourse to sue, as she has, for wrongful discharge by means of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 300, 303).
In any event, the motion court correctly held that defendants’ conduct, which included conducting an investigation into the forged signatures of plaintiff’s supervisor on plaintiff’s expense reports, questioning plaintiff about the forgeries, and thereafter terminating her employment and escorting her from the premises, was not so extreme and outrageous as to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 121; Arrington v Liz Claiborne, Inc., 260 AD2d 267, 268).
Summary judgment was also properly granted dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action for defamation, since defendants’ statements, even if construed as defamatory, were all made in the course of the investigation and consequent termination of plaintiff, and, as such, were qualifiedly privilege (see Present v Avon Prods., 253 AD2d 183, 187, lv dismissed 93 NY2d 1032). The record fails to disclose an issue of fact as to the existence of malice on the part of defendants sufficient to overcome such privilege (see Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 751-752). Concur — Williams, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.