## Facts

- Augusta M. Bartow initiated a special proceeding seeking to have Emil Hauser adjudged incompetent and to have herself appointed committee of his person and property.
- Hauser alleged Bartow acted maliciously and without legal cause to gain control of his property and prevent him from changing his will.
- The court proceeded without Hauser’s appearance, based on alleged representations that his attendance would be dangerous.
- Bartow was appointed committee and, acting under that authority, allegedly removed Hauser as a corporate officer/director, sold securities, and managed his property and person.
- After learning of the orders and facing loss of liberty, Hauser obtained a jury trial on competency; the jury found him competent, Bartow was discharged, and she accounted and received commissions and expenses.
- Hauser then sued Bartow for damages, labeling the claim malicious abuse of process (and alternatively malicious prosecution); the trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim for abuse of process where it alleged a maliciously procured incompetency proceeding but no misuse of process after issuance.
2. Whether the complaint could be sustained as a claim for malicious prosecution based on the incompetency proceeding and its favorable termination.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.
- The complaint did not plead abuse of process because it alleged, at most, wrongful institution of the proceeding, not a perversion of process after issuance.
- The complaint could not be maintained as civil malicious prosecution under controlling New York doctrine limiting such claims for civil/special proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Abuse of process requires (1) regularly issued process and (2) a subsequent misuse of that process to achieve an objective not authorized by law; wrongful or malicious initiation alone is insufficient.
- Acts that fall within the ordinary scope of authority conferred by a facially valid court order are not, without more, a “perversion” of process for abuse-of-process purposes.
- Civil malicious prosecution claims in New York were narrowly confined, particularly for civil or special proceedings not involving arrest or seizure of property; favorable termination alone does not create liability absent the doctrine’s other required elements as recognized by precedent.

## Conclusion

Because Hauser alleged a maliciously obtained incompetency proceeding but did not allege an improper use of process after issuance, and because New York law did not permit his theory of civil malicious prosecution on these facts, the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the complaint.


Hauser v. Bartow, 273 N.Y. 370, 7 N.E.2d 268 (N.Y. 1937)