Board of Education v. Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Ass’n, 38 N.Y.2d 397 (1975)
r
r
The tort of abuse of process occurs when regularly issued legal process is used to achieve a collateral purpose outside the legitimate ends of the process, motivated by a desire to harm without economic or social justification.
r
r
Summary
r
This case concerns a school district’s claim against a teachers’ association and its attorney for abuse of process. The school district alleged that the defendants maliciously subpoenaed 87 teachers to a hearing, knowing that not all could testify on the initial date, and refused to stagger their appearances, forcing the district to hire numerous substitutes. The New York Court of Appeals held that the complaint stated a valid cause of action for abuse of process because the subpoenas were regularly issued, the defendants were motivated by an intent to harass and injure, and the refusal to accommodate a reasonable request suggested the process was used to inflict economic harm.
r
r
Facts
r
A dispute arose between a school district and a teachers’ association when many teachers were absent from classes, leading to charges against the association for violating the Taylor Law. The association denied condoning a strike, and a hearing was scheduled. The association’s attorney then issued subpoenas to 87 teachers to compel their attendance at the hearing. The school district learned of the subpoenas shortly before the hearing date and requested that the majority of teachers be excused from attending on the initial date, or at least that their appearances be staggered. This request was refused. Consequently, all 87 teachers attended, and 77 substitutes had to be hired.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The school district filed a complaint alleging abuse of process and prima facie tort. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Special Term denied the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The case then proceeded to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the school district’s complaint states a valid cause of action for abuse of process based on the teachers’ association’s issuance of subpoenas to 87 teachers, knowing that all could not testify on the initial hearing date, and the refusal to stagger their appearances.
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because the complaint alleges that the subpoenas were regularly issued, the defendants were motivated by an intent to harass and injure the school district, and the refusal to comply with a reasonable request to stagger appearances supports an inference that the process was perverted to inflict economic harm.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals outlined the three essential elements of abuse of process: (1) regularly issued process, civil or criminal; (2) a motive to do harm without economic or social justification; and (3) seeking a collateral advantage or detriment outside the legitimate ends of the process. The court emphasized that “[w]here process is manipulated to achieve some collateral advantage, whether it be denominated extortion, blackmail or retribution, the tort of abuse of process will be available to the injured party.” The court found that the school district’s complaint satisfied these elements. The subpoenas were regularly issued, the defendants were allegedly motivated by an intent to harass, and the refusal to stagger appearances suggested a perversion of process to inflict economic harm. While acknowledging that subpoenaing all witnesses for the first day of a proceeding is a standard practice, the court stated that the allegation of malicious intent to injure and harass, with the knowledge that all subpoenaed individuals could not testify, established a plausible claim for abuse of process. The court also held that the school district, though not a party to the initial PERB proceeding, had standing to bring the action as the target and victim of the process’s perversion. The Court further clarified that a cause of action in prima facie tort could be pleaded alternatively with a traditional tort, such as abuse of process, permitting the plaintiff to pursue the claim even if the traditional tort cause of action fails. The court also permitted the claim for punitive damages, contingent on establishing malice. The court modified the order to strike the claim for damages representing salaries paid to subpoenaed teachers, as these were approved absences under the collective bargaining agreement. The court emphasized, “[W]henever there is an intentional infliction of economic damage, without excuse or justification, we will eschew formalism and recognize the existence of a cause of action.”