New York Law Review

Tag: Parkin v. Cornell University

  • Parkin v. Cornell University, Inc., 78 N.Y.2d 523 (1991): Probable Cause and Abuse of Process Claims in Employment Disputes

    Parkin v. Cornell University, Inc., 78 N.Y.2d 523 (1991)

    The issue of probable cause in false arrest and malicious prosecution claims is a question of law for the court only when there is no factual dispute; abuse of process requires evidence the legal process was used for an improper purpose.

    Summary

    Two Cornell University employees, active in union negotiations, were arrested for stealing envelopes. They alleged the charges were retaliation for their union activities. The New York Court of Appeals held that the existence of probable cause for the arrest was a jury question because of conflicting evidence about the commonality of delivering materials without delivery slips and whether the employees had permission to retain the envelopes. The Court also reinstated the abuse of process claim, finding that the jury instructions, to which the defendants did not object, were satisfied by the evidence presented.

    Facts

    John Cleveland and Thomas Parkin, employees of Cornell University and active union members, were arrested and charged with petit larceny and possession of stolen property. The charges stemmed from Cleveland requesting and receiving four boxes of envelopes from Parkin at the university print shop. Cleveland claimed he requested the envelopes as samples for an Alumni House employee. University officials investigated, focusing primarily on whether the delivery was authorized rather than the employees’ intent. The arrests occurred shortly after the employees participated in union job actions.

    Procedural History

    After their arrest, Parkin and Cleveland were terminated but were later reinstated with back pay after filing grievances through their union. The criminal charges were subsequently dismissed. They then sued Cornell University for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the jury’s verdict and remitting the case to the Appellate Division to consider other issues raised in the appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the existence of probable cause for the arrest and prosecution of the plaintiffs should have been decided by the court as a matter of law or properly submitted to the jury as a question of fact.

    2. Whether the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to support a claim for abuse of process.

    Holding

    1. No, because there were factual disputes regarding the delivery slip system and the employee’s intent, making it a question for the jury.

    2. Yes, because the jury instructions regarding abuse of process were satisfied by the evidence presented and the defendants did not object to those instructions.

    Court’s Reasoning

    Regarding probable cause, the Court of Appeals emphasized that the issue is a question of law for the court only when there is no real dispute as to the facts or the proper inferences to be drawn from such facts. Here, the evidence presented at trial created factual disputes, namely the commonality of deliveries without slips and whether Cleveland had permission to retain the envelopes. These disputes were directly relevant to determining whether the employees intended to deprive the university of property, an essential element of petit larceny. The court noted the public safety officer’s mistaken belief that intent was irrelevant, which further supported the jury’s role in determining probable cause.

    Regarding abuse of process, the Court acknowledged prior language suggesting that improper conduct must occur after the issuance of process. However, it found that the defendants did not object to the jury instructions on abuse of process, which only required a finding that the charges were brought to interfere with union activities. The court stated, “Inasmuch as plaintiffs’ evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict under the law as charged, without objection, in this case, there is no basis for dismissing this cause of action.”

  • Parkin v. Cornell University, 78 N.Y.2d 523 (1991): Establishing Malice in Qualifiedly Privileged Defamation Claims

    Parkin v. Cornell University, 78 N.Y.2d 523 (1991)

    In a defamation action involving a qualifiedly privileged statement, the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant acted with malice.

    Summary

    This case addresses the standard of evidence required to defeat summary judgment in a defamation claim where the allegedly defamatory statement is protected by a qualified privilege. The plaintiffs sued Cornell University, its employees, and its attorneys for defamation and other causes of action related to the handling of an insurance claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the defamation claim, holding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of malice to overcome the qualified privilege protecting a disclaimer letter written by the university’s attorneys. The Court also dismissed a claim based on an alleged violation of the Insurance Law, finding no evidence of a general business practice of bad faith.

    Facts

    Plaintiffs commenced an action against Cornell University, the Andrews law firm, Royal Globe Insurance, and Patrick DiDomenico (Royal’s manager). The defamation cause of action was based on a disclaimer letter from the Andrews law firm to the plaintiffs, their attorney, and their adjuster. The plaintiffs also asserted a cause of action alleging a violation of Section 40-d of the Insurance Law, claiming Royal Globe engaged in unfair claim settlement practices.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to publication of the defamatory statement by Royal Globe or DiDomenico.

    2. Whether the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Andrews law firm acted with malice in publishing the disclaimer letter, thus overcoming the qualified privilege.

    3. Whether the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of a “general business practice” on the part of Royal Globe to support a private cause of action under Section 40-d of the Insurance Law.

    4. Whether the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of gross disregard of the insured’s rights to support a bad-faith claim against Royal Globe.

    Holding

    1. No, because nothing in the complaint or affidavits presented a triable issue as to publication by Royal Globe or DiDomenico.

    2. No, because the plaintiffs failed to present evidence of malice on the part of the Andrews firm sufficient to overcome the qualified privilege. The court stated that “one opposing a motion for summary judgment must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact on which he rests his claim.”

    3. No, because the plaintiffs failed to present “evidentiary proof in admissible form” of a “general business practice” on the part of Royal Globe, as required by Section 40-d of the Insurance Law.

    4. No, because plaintiffs failed to present evidentiary proof of gross disregard of the insured’s rights, an essential element of a bad-faith claim.

    Court’s Reasoning

    Regarding the defamation claim, the court emphasized that the disclaimer letter was qualifiedly privileged. Therefore, the plaintiffs bore the burden of proving that the Andrews firm acted with malice. The court found no evidence to suggest that further examination of a witness (Turnbull) would reasonably lead to evidence of malice. The court cited Zuckerman v City of New York, stating that a party opposing summary judgment must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form to require a trial or demonstrate an acceptable excuse for failing to do so. Mere conclusions or unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient.

    Regarding the Insurance Law claim, the court assumed, without deciding, that Section 40-d could create a private cause of action. However, it found no admissible evidence of a “general business practice” of unfair claim settlement by Royal Globe, as required by the statute. Furthermore, even assuming that bad-faith principles applicable to liability insurance cases (failure to defend or settle third-party claims) extended to first-party claims under a fire insurance policy, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the gross disregard of the insured’s rights necessary to establish such a claim. The Court referenced Halpin v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., highlighting the distinction between failure to settle a liability claim versus a first-party insurance claim.