## Facts

- The plaintiff alleged that, since October 1966, the defendant repeatedly targeted him in public and by telephone.
- The defendant allegedly rushed at the plaintiff in a threatening manner in public places using menacing gestures and expressions accompanied by mocking utterances and laughter.
- The defendant allegedly followed the plaintiff’s car at a dangerously close distance.
- The defendant allegedly walked closely behind, beside, or in front of the plaintiff on public streets in a harassing manner.
- The defendant allegedly made constant telephone calls to the plaintiff’s home and business and either hung up or remained silent.
- The plaintiff alleged the conduct was malicious and intended to cause physical and mental harm, and that it caused severe emotional distress, sleeplessness, and physical debilitation.
- The complaint pleaded intentional infliction of emotional and physical harm and sought injunctive relief to stop ongoing harassment.
- The defendant moved to dismiss the first two causes of action for failure to state a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the allegations, accepted as true, stated a legally sufficient claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York law.
2. Whether the associated request for injunctive relief survived a motion to dismiss where the underlying tort claim was adequately pleaded.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss for insufficiency in law.
- The court held the complaint sufficiently alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The court allowed the action, including the related claim for injunctive relief, to proceed beyond the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires allegations that the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly causing severe emotional distress.
- Trivial affronts and minor insults are not actionable; the law does not provide a remedy for mere annoyances.
- A persistent pattern of targeted harassment may constitute extreme and outrageous conduct when it exceeds ordinary indignities and is plausibly intended to cause severe distress.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts pleaded facts as true and asks only whether the allegations state a cognizable claim, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prove them.

## Conclusion

The court held that allegations of sustained, malicious harassment—threatening approaches, dangerous tailgating, stalking-like street conduct, and repeated silent calls—could reasonably be found extreme and outrageous under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, and therefore stated a viable claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress sufficient to defeat dismissal.


Flamm v. Van Nierop, 56 Misc. 2d 1059, 291 N.Y.S.2d 189 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cnty. 1968)