Vickery v. Village of Saugerties

holding that violation of confidentiality provisions of New York’s Domestic Relations Law by publication of information contained in court papers in a divorce action was not capable of sustaining an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim | dismissing claim for prima facie tort where plaintiff failed to state a conventional tort claim | publishing the contents of confidential divorce records was not extreme and outrageous conduct | referring to the statutory fair report privilege as an affirmative defense | section 51 “grant[s] protection only to the extent of affording a remedy for commercial exploitation of an individual’s name, portrait or picture, without written consent” | lawyer properly sanctioned for bringing frivolous emotional distress claim because claim premised on destruction of personal property | "[W]here a traditional tort remedy exists, a party will not be foreclosed from pleading, as alternative relief, a cause of action for prima facie tort.” | “A critical element of the cause of action is that plaintiff suffered specific and measurable loss, which requires an allegation of special damages.” | “We have in the past recognized that, in this State, there is no common-law right of privacy and the only available remedy is that created by Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51.” | publication of confidential, but lawfully obtained, matrimonial court files is not outrageous | publication of confidential, but lawfully obtained, matrimonial court files is not outrageous | newspaper articles about divorce proceedings was not “commercial exploitation” for purposes of the statutes | prima facie tort consists of "(1) the intentional infliction of harm, (2) which results in special damages, (3) without any excuse or justification, (4) by an act or series of acts which would otherwise be lawful” | intention can be inferred from outra-geousness of conduct