School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz
771 N.Y.S.2d 804 · 2003
Facts
Diane Kuprewicz, a former employee of the School of Visual Arts (SVA), allegedly engaged in a campaign of harassment against SVA and Laurie Pearlberg, SVA’s Director of Human Resources. Kuprewicz posted false job listings for Pearlberg’s non-vacant position on craigslist.com and via email, directing applicants to SVA. She also allegedly provided Pearlberg’s SVA email address to pornographic websites, resulting in Pearlberg receiving large volumes of unwanted sexually explicit emails. Additionally, Kuprewicz was accused of causing Pearlberg to receive unwanted pornographic catalogs by mail at her work address and sending pornographic electronic cards to Pearlberg’s SVA email. These actions allegedly depleted hard disk space, drained processing power, and adversely affected other system resources on SVA’s computer system.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs School of Visual Arts and Laurie Pearlberg filed a complaint containing six causes of action. In response to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief, defendant Diane Kuprewicz cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a cause of action. The court had previously issued an oral ruling granting, in part, a preliminary injunction against Kuprewicz sending pornographic email to plaintiffs.
Issue
Does the plaintiffs' complaint, alleging false job postings, unsolicited pornographic materials, and computer system damage, state legally cognizable causes of action for false designation of origin, dilution, defamation, trade libel, civil rights violations, trespass to chattels, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage?
Holding
The court denied Kuprewicz's motion to dismiss SVA's claim for common-law trespass to chattels. However, the court granted Kuprewicz's motion to dismiss all other causes of action, including Lanham Act violations, defamation and trade libel, Civil Rights Law violations, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
Rule
To establish trespass to chattels, a plaintiff must prove the defendant intentionally, and without justification or consent, physically interfered with the use and enjoyment of personal property in the plaintiff’s possession, causing harm. Liability arises if the interference results in harm to the owner’s materially valuable interest in the chattel’s physical condition, quality, or value, or if the owner is deprived of the chattel’s use for a substantial time. The defendant must act with the intention of interfering or with knowledge that such interference is substantially certain to result. The court found that allegations of large volumes of unsolicited emails depleting hard disk space and draining processing power met this standard.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.