Summary
This Appellate Division decision affirms the dismissal of a plaintiff's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the parents of an adult son who stalked and harassed the plaintiff's daughter. The court held that under New York law, parents do not owe a duty of care to third parties for the tortious conduct of their emancipated adult children. Consequently, the complaint failed to state a cause of action as required by CPLR 3211(a).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Greenbergs owed a duty of care to the plaintiff for the negligent infliction of emotional distress caused by their son’s conduct
- Whether the complaint states a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the Greenbergs
Holdings
- The Greenbergs owed no duty of care to the plaintiff to protect him against the actions of their emancipated adult son, and therefore the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
Key quotations
“The question of whether a defendant owes a duty of care to another person is a question of law for the courts.”
“Absent a duty of care, there is no breach, and without breach there can be no liability.”
Factual background
Jake Greenberg, an adult son of Stephen and Shari Greenberg, stalked and harassed the plaintiff's daughter after their relationship ended, resulting in multiple arrests and a guilty plea to criminal contempt and stalking. The plaintiff sued Jake and his parents for negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging the parents aided and abetted Jake by providing financial support and failing to warn the plaintiff's family.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Westchester County dismissed the complaint against Stephen and Shari Greenberg for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211(a). The appellant appealed the dismissal.