It is, in short, the place which has the most significant relationship with the subject matter of the tort charged. The District is the jurisdiction in which most of the acts are alleged to have occurred, and it was there, too, that the plaintiff lived and suffered the impact of those acts. Of this motion-that the sufficiency of these allegations is to be determined under the law of the District of Columbia. In point of fact, the parties have agreed-at least for purposes The threshold choice of law question requires no extended discussion. 722, 725 see, also, 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. These charges are amplified in the plaintiff's bill of particulars, and those particulars are, of course, to be taken into account in considering the sufficiency of the challenged causes of action. 9(f)) and (6) conducted a 'continuing' and harassing investigation of him (par. 9(e)) (5) tapped his telephone and eavesdropped, by means of mechanical and electronic equipment, on his private conversations with others (par. 9(d)) (4) made threatening, harassing and obnoxious telephone calls to him (par. 9(c)) (3) caused him to be accosted by girls for the purpose of entrapping him into illicit relationships (par. 9(b)) (2) kept him under surveillance in public places for an unreasonable length of time (par.
#Rix v. general motors corp series#
Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the appellant's agents (1) conducted a series of interviews with acquaintances of the plaintiff, 'questioning them about, and casting aspersions upon (his) political, social * * * racial and religious views * * * his integrity his sexual proclivities and inclinations and his personal habits' (Complaint, par. To that end, the appellant authorized and directed the other defendants to engage in a series of activities which, the plaintiff claims in his first two causes of action, violated his right to privacy. According to the complaint-which, for present purposes, we must assume to be true-the appellant, having learned of the imminent publication of the plaintiff's book 'Unsafe at any Speed,' decided to conduct a campaign of intimidation against him in order to 'suppress plaintiff's criticism of and prevent his disclosure of information' about its products. The plaintiff, an author and lecturer on automotive safety, has, for some years, been an articulate and severe critic of General Motors' products from the standpoint of safety and design. This appeal concerns only the legal sufficiency of the first two causes of action, which were upheld in the courts below as against the appellant's motion to dismiss (CPLR 3211, subd. The first two causes of action charge an invasion of privacy, the third is predicated on the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress and the fourth on interference with the plaintiff's economic advantage. The complaint, in this action by Ralph Nader, pleads four causes of action against the appellant, General Motors Corporation, and three otherĭefendants allegedly acting as its agents. On this appeal, taken by permission of the Appellate Division on a certified question, we are called upon to determine the reach of the tort of invasion of privacy as it exists under the law of the District of Columbia. Rheingold, New York City, for respondent. Rifkind, New York City, Martin Kleinbard, Rye, and Allan Blumstein, New York City, for appellant. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
0 kommentar(er)
