Borisovki v Church Ave. Merchants Block Assn., Inc.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Borisovki v Church Ave. Merchants Block Assn., Inc. 2010 NY Slip Op 50056(U) [26 Misc 3d 131(A)] Decided on January 19, 2010 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 19, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570728/09.

Alexandre Borisovki, Plaintiff-Appellant, - -

against

Church Avenue Merchants Block Association, Inc. i/s/h/a CAMBA, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered September 2, 2009, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Per Curiam.

Order (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered September 2, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim for "violation of right to privacy" because New York does not recognize a common-law right to privacy (see Messenger v Gruner + Jahr Print. & Publ., 94 NY2d 436, 441 [2000]; Thomas v Northeast Theatre Corp., 51 AD3d 588 [2008]), and, as plaintiff concedes, he has not stated a claim under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 (see Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 123 [1993]). The court also properly dismissed plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since plaintiff failed to allege conduct by defendant "so outrageous in character and 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" (Murphy v Am. Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 303 [1983]; see Slatkin v Lancer Litho Packaging Corp., 33 AD3d 421 [2006]).

We have considered and rejected plaintiff's remaining arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: January 19, 2010

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.