## Facts

- Defendants filed one or more notices of pendency (lis pendens) against real property associated with plaintiff’s racetrack.
- Plaintiff sued, alleging abuse of process and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Plaintiff alleged the lis pendens functioned as “process” affecting its ability to deal with the property.
- Plaintiff alleged defendants acted with intent to harm plaintiff without excuse or justification.
- Plaintiff alleged defendants used the lis pendens to obtain a collateral advantage and to cause corresponding harm beyond the legitimate purpose of the procedure.
- Plaintiff also alleged the notices of pendency were filed “without just cause in the first instance.”
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, arguing the pleading sounded in malicious prosecution rather than abuse of process.
- The trial court denied dismissal; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint, liberally construed, stated a cause of action for abuse of process arising from the filing of notices of pendency.
2. Whether alleging the notices of pendency were filed “without just cause in the first instance” required treating the claim as malicious prosecution rather than abuse of process.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order denying defendants’ motions to dismiss.
- The court held the complaint adequately stated causes of action for abuse of process against all defendants.
- The court held that alleging the notices were filed “without just cause in the first instance” did not necessarily reclassify the claim as malicious prosecution at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- Abuse of process requires: (1) regularly issued process, (2) intent to do harm without excuse or justification, and (3) use of the process to obtain a collateral objective outside its proper scope.
- A notice of pendency may constitute “process” for abuse-of-process pleading purposes when it is used to affect interests in real property.
- At the pleading stage, a complaint is read liberally; allegations suggesting lack of initial justification do not defeat an otherwise sufficient abuse-of-process claim.
- Overlap between allegations associated with malicious prosecution and abuse of process does not require dismissal where the pleading centers on misuse of process to obtain a collateral advantage.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the action to proceed because the complaint plausibly alleged that defendants used notices of pendency as process to inflict harm and secure collateral objectives beyond the lawful purpose of lis pendens, and the inclusion of an allegation that the filings lacked initial justification did not require dismissal or recharacterization as malicious prosecution.


Parr Meadows Racing Ass'n v. White, 76 A.D.2d 858, 428 N.Y.S.2d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1980)