Sunday, March 30, 2008


As most of my readers know I have a lawsuit against the City of New York and the Administration of Children's Services aka CPS for Malicious Prosecution and Negligent misrepresentation in Supreme Court as a civil case.

Anywho, I was looking up the statue of limitations for a Title 42 USC Section 1983 case in Federal Court. That would allow me to add my estranged husband, the attorneys and Judges that have violated my civil rights into a condensenced case in Federal Court.

Well in my research I came accross something that made me laugh out loud, so although it's somewhat off my normal blogging I have to share.. to funny to let this one slide..


Here's an unusual case for you.

The Appellate Term, 2nd and 11th Judicial Districts, recently examined a lawsuit where the plaintiff sought damages for "harassment," "defamation," "malicious prosecution," and, "[w]asting time and mak[ing] me sick." The Queens County Civil Court dismissed these claims since the plaintiff's pleading failed to state a legally cognizable basis upon which relief could be granted. And, on appeal, the appellate court affirmed that outcome.

First and foremost, New York State does not recognize a civil claim based on "harassment," except in the case of a regulated tenant (and, apparently, this litigation did not involve a rent-regulated apartment).*

A claim predicated on "defamation," typically defined as words which wrongfully impugn an individual's honesty, integrity, sanity, or the like, requires that the offending language be included in a party's pleading. And, in the absence of that recitation, a case "must" be dismissed. (Of course, this plaintiff failed to provide the pertinent quotes in his complaint.)**

"Malicious prosecution," on the other hand, generally applies when an action or proceeding was started by a party against you, was decided in your favor, there was no justifiable basis to bring the case, and, you were damaged as a result of the wrongful conduct. In this instance, since the plaintiff did not establish that a prior lawsuit had been commenced and adjudicated in his favor, that particular aspect of the dispute could not survive.

Finally, since existing law does not recognize a recovery for someone "wasting your time and making you sick," that final component of the litigation was also denied resurrection.

Just think how much richer we'd all be if the law permitted us to sue whenever someone wasted our time or made us sick. (Don't know about you, but I'd be a trillionaire.)

For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision in Gabara v. Bodajlo, please click the following link:

Here it is - I swear you can't make this shit up...

New York Real Estate Lawyers' Blog - New York Real Estate Litigation Attorneys' Blog - Finkelstein Newman Ferrara LLP

No comments: