In Lopez v. Trahan, No. 155637/2020, 2024 WL 3070014 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County June 20, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
From the decision:
To establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a Plaintiff must show (1) extreme and outrageous conduct (2) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing severe emotional distress; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (4) severe emotional distress. For conduct to be extreme and outrageous, it must be so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community (164 Mulberry Street corp. v Columbia University, 4 AD3d 49 [1st Dept 2004]). A deliberate and prolonged campaign of physical harassment in a relationship with uneven power dynamics may give rise to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Petty v Law Office of Robert P. Santoriella, P.C., 200 AD3d 621 [1st Dept 2021]).
Here, there is evidence in the record that Plaintiff was the “bread winner” for the household which included her son and disabled granddaughter. There is corroborated record evidence that Dr. Trahan, on multiple occasions, pushed and grabbed Plaintiff preventing her from leaving the office, and would intimidate her by slamming files in front of her face or even throwing patient files at her. There is likewise corroborated evidence that he would repeatedly yell at her in front of patients and make disparaging remarks, including calling her an “old hag.” There are multiple hospital records and a police report related to the instances of alleged physical abuse, and Plaintiff now claims she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Similar to the facts of Petty, the evidence in the record also supports an inference that there is an uneven power dynamic as Dr. Trahan was Plaintiff’s boss and knew that Plaintiff was taking care of a disabled granddaughter. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant, as this Court must, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could find Dr. Trahan’s behavior, as Plaintiff’s boss, could give rise to an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. If a jury credits Plaintiff and her witnesses testimony, they may find Dr. Trahan’s behavior extreme and outrageous and that he disregarded the substantial probability that his actions may cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress.
The court concluded that these are issues of fact, which the court is unable to resolve at this stage of the proceedings.