## Facts

- In March 1972, many teachers in a school district were absent for two consecutive days; the district treated the absences as an illegal strike under the Taylor Law.
- The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) brought a charge against the teachers’ association for violating the Taylor Law.
- A PERB hearing was scheduled over multiple dates in October 1972.
- Before the first hearing date, the association’s attorney issued subpoenas duces tecum to 87 teachers requiring appearance on the first day.
- The district learned of the subpoenas when teachers requested approved absences under the collective bargaining agreement.
- The district asked that most teachers be excused from the first date or that appearances be staggered; the association refused and insisted all 87 attend on the first day.
- All 87 teachers attended; the district hired 77 substitutes to avoid closing schools.
- The district sued the association and its attorney, alleging (1) abuse of process, (2) prima facie tort, and (3) intentional interference with teachers’ employment contracts, seeking damages tied to substitute costs and paid salaries.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that defendants issued subpoenas to 87 teachers for a single hearing date, knowing most could not testify that day and refusing to stagger appearances, stated a claim for abuse of process.
2. Whether the same conduct could also support claims for prima facie tort and intentional interference with contract at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- The court held the complaint sufficiently pleaded abuse of process because subpoenas are “process” and the alleged manner of use supported an inference of a collateral, improper purpose.
- The action was allowed to proceed beyond the pleading stage on the abuse-of-process theory (and, to the extent applicable, related theories).

## Legal Principles

- Abuse of process requires: (1) regularly issued process, civil or criminal; (2) intent to do harm without excuse or justification; and (3) use of the process in a perverted manner to obtain a collateral objective.
- The tort focuses on improper use of process after issuance; it does not require favorable termination of the underlying proceeding.
- Subpoenas constitute process and may support an abuse-of-process claim when used primarily to achieve collateral ends rather than to secure evidence.
- The existence of a labor dispute or administrative proceeding does not immunize parties from tort liability for misuse of judicial process.

## Conclusion

The court held that a school district stated an abuse-of-process claim by alleging that a teachers’ association and its attorney mass-issued subpoenas and forced simultaneous attendance, not to obtain testimony, but to inflict economic and operational disruption, and it permitted the case to proceed past dismissal.


Board of Educ. of Farmingdale Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Farmingdale Classroom Tchrs. Ass'n, Inc., 38 N.Y.2d 397, 343 N.E.2d 278 (N.Y. 1975)