Summary
recognizing immunity for good faith compliance with the mandatory reporting requirements and the need for plaintiffs to allege actual malice in making the reports
Summary of this case from Cox v. Warwick Valley Central School DistrictOpinion
CA 02-01457
December 30, 2002.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Centra, J.), entered May 29, 2002, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
STEWART L. WEISMAN, MANLIUS, FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
BOND, SCHOENECK KING, LLP, SYRACUSE (DONALD S. DI BENEDETTO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, PINE, KEHOE, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages allegedly resulting from a report made by defendants pursuant to Social Services Law § 413 of suspected educational neglect by plaintiffs of their 13-year-old daughter. Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Pursuant to Social Services Law § 419, defendants are entitled to immunity from liability for their good faith compliance with the reporting requirements of section 413, and plaintiffs failed to present sufficient factual allegations that defendants were motivated by actual malice in making the report ( see Escalera v. Favaro, 298 A.D.2d 552 [Oct. 28, 2002]; Kubik v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 244 A.D.2d 606, 609; Miller v. Beck, 82 A.D.2d 912, 913). In any event, with respect to the causes of action for slander and libel, plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to defeat the qualified privilege protecting defendants' statements ( see Christenson v. Gutman, 249 A.D.2d 805, 807; Miller, 82 A.D.2d at 913). Plaintiffs also failed to allege conduct sufficiently outrageous in character to support the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress ( see Harville v Lowville Cent. School Dist., 245 A.D.2d 1106, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 808) or conduct that endangered their physical safety or caused them to fear for their physical safety to support the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress ( see Andrewski v. Devine, 280 A.D.2d 992, 993). Plaintiffs have abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of the cause of action alleging that defendants filed a false instrument ( see Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984). Finally, plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages do not survive the dismissal of the substantive causes of action ( see Andrewski, 280 A.D.2d at 993).