Ralin v City of New York
2007 NY Slip Op 07830 [44 AD3d 838]
October 16, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 12, 2007


Brad S. Ralin, Appellant,
v
City of New York et al.,Respondents.

[*1]Brad S. Ralin, Forest Hills, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein,Nicholas R. Ciappetta, and Mordecai Newman of counsel), for respondents.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for harassment and intentional infliction ofemotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Flug, J.), entered November 17, 2005, which granted the defendants' cross motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint, and denied, as academic, his separate motions, inter alia, fora preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On their cross motion, the defendants met their burden of demonstrating their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v ProspectHosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The defendants established, among other things, that NewYork does not recognize a cause of action to recover damages for harassment (see Santoro v Town of Smithtown, 40AD3d 736, 738 [2007]). The defendants also established that the cause of action to recoverdamages for intentional inflection of emotional distress was not properly asserted against thedefendant City of New York because it is a governmental entity, and moreover, that the actsallegedly committed by the defendants do not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conductthat is required to sustain such a cause of action (see Liranzo v New York City Health &Hosps. Corp., 300 AD2d 548 [2002]).

In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v ProspectHosp., 68 NY2d at 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants'cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.[*2]

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit orhave been rendered academic by our determination. Rivera, J.P., Covello, Balkin and McCarthy,JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.