Opinion
00-11561
January 17, 2002
March 11, 2002.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated October 18, 2000, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Saks Company d/b/a Saks Fifth Avenue and its employees which were for summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of action and denied her cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Weinstein, Chayt Chase, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Boris Zivotov of counsel), for appellant.
Mound, Cotton, Wollan Greengrass, New York, N.Y. (Mark J. Weber of counsel), for respondents.
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, HOWARD MILLER, and SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of action to recover damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring, respectively, was properly granted. The conduct alleged falls far short of the outrageous and extreme conduct required to sustain a cause of action to recover damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress (see, Andrews v. Bruk, 220 A.D.2d 376). Also, the plaintiff failed to set forth any facts tending to show that Saks Company d/b/a/ Saks Fifth Avenue (hereinafter Saks) had notice of improper conduct by its employees (see, Ranieri v. Lawlor, 211 A.D.2d 601) and, accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to Saks dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.