164 Mulberry Street Corp. v. Columbia University

771 N.Y.S.2d 16 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Flynn (D), a Columbia Business School professor, designed and implemented a study which sought to elicit responses from restaurants in New York City to complaints from putative customers. Flynn (D) sent letters to Rs' restaurants, as well as many other New York City restaurants. Ps in these two companion actions are the various restaurants and restaurateurs, along with their employees, who were the subjects of Flynn's (D) stupid experiment, and who allege damages as a result. Ps sued for libel and libel per se arising from publication of defamatory information regarding the restaurants' hygienic safety. Flynn's (D) wrote letters in which he falsely accused Ps of serving food to D's wife that resulted in her suffering from food poisoning, with severe gastric consequences that putatively ruined their anniversary. The letter(s) disclaimed any intention of the complainant of contacting regulatory agencies, and stated that the only intent was to convey to the owner what had occurred 'in anticipation that you will respond accordingly.' D eventually admitted the falsehood in a September 4, 2001 letter of apology, in which he explained in cursory fashion that 'the letter was fabricated to help collect data for a research study that I designed concerning vendor response to consumer complaints,' and that none of the data thereby collected would be used for publication. The Dean of the Columbia Business School, Professor Meyer Feldberg, also wrote a letter, dated September 5, 2001, apologizing for D's conduct. In the interim between the original letter and the apologies, D had repeated the false statement regarding putative food poisoning in a telephone call to one of the plaintiff's mother. Ps allege that they were extremely upset by the claim of food poisoning, especially in view of the extraordinarily competitive nature of the restaurant business and the critical importance of reputation. In reaction, they tried, unsuccessfully, to send flowers to the fictitious address. The New York City Department of Health conducted an investigation into the claim of food poisoning, during which restaurant employees were required to submit to stool analysis. Ps allege that as a result of the letters being sent, 'plaintiffs suffered enormous emotional distress, guilt, fear of loss of individual jobs and business, and fear of loss of reputation.' Ds moved to dismiss the complaints. Noting the essential generality of the causes of action, the court dismissed most of the claims. With regard to the negligent infliction of emotional distress claims by individual Ps in both actions, the court found no allegation of a breach of duty owed directly to the various Ps which either endangered or caused them to fear for, their physical safety. Regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress, a personal claim of harm, all such claims in the Chez Josephine action against restaurant entities were dismissed as nonviable claims. In both actions, some claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel per se, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and punitive damages claims. Ds appealed.