and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of
causing, severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and
injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress. The first element — outrageous conduct
— serves the dual function of filtering out petty and trivial complaints that do not
belong in court, and assuring that plaintiff's claim of severe emotional distress is
genuine" (Howell v New York Post Co., Inc., 81 NY2d 115, 121 [1993]).
"Liability arises only when defendant's conduct is extreme and outrageous, measured by
the reasonable bounds of decency tolerated by decent society" (Hughes v Pacienza, 35 Misc
3d 1207(A), *2 [Sup Ct, Kings Co, Rivera, J, 2012], citing Marmelstein v Kehillat New
Hempstead, 11 NY3d 15 [2008]). A claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress based on sexual harassment may be sustained if the conduct is "so outrageous in
character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and
to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community" (Collins
v Willcox Incorporated, 158 Misc 2d 54, 56-57 [Sup Ct, NY Co, Greenfield, J,
1992]).
"Whether the conduct complained of is outrageous is, in the first instance, for the
court" (Hughes v Pacienza, supra, citing Cavallaro v Pozzi, 28 AD3d
1075 [4th Dept 2006]). In making this determination, the court is best aided by
examples. An employer's giving plaintiff a hard slap on her backside and "wholly
inappropriate" sexual harassment have been held to be insufficiently outrageous to
establish intentional infliction of emotional distress (Arena v Agip USA Inc.,
supra, 2000 WL 264312 at *5, citing Jaffe v National League for