DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 290

Citation
§ 290
Parent Document
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 67 (2021)
Effective Date
2021-03-25
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4867798/francis-v-kings-park-manor-inc/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (993)

Full Text

1,090 chars 
13The majority opinion also affirms the District Court’s dismissal of Francis’s state law
claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under New York law on the ground
that a landlord owes no common law duty to prevent one tenant from harassing
another tenant. See Majority Op. at 34–36. As explained above, that interpretation of
New York law is mistaken. I concur in the dismissal of this claim for a quite different
reason unrelated to KPM’s duty. Any injury for negligent infliction of emotional
distress “is compensable only when [it is] a direct, rather than a consequential, result of
the breach” of a duty that a defendant owes to a plaintiff. Kennedy v. McKesson Co.,
58 N.Y.2d 500, 506 (1983). Here, as alleged in the complaint and when viewed in the
light most favorable to Francis, the KPM Defendants’ intentional breach of the duty
they may have owed Francis did not directly result in Francis’s emotional distress,
which Endres directly caused with his continued campaign of racial harassment.
                                            35
IV.   Final Considerations