In B. v G., the Appellate Division, Second Department, considered whether the parents of a young man convicted of stalking could be held liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
The plaintiff, J.B., brought suit against J.G., the individual who had harassed J.B.’s daughter, and also against J.G.’s parents, S.G. and S.G. J.B. alleged that the parents had aided and abetted their son’s misconduct by supporting him financially and failing to intervene or warn the family.
Apparently, J.G. had been in a brief relationship with J.B.’s daughter, which she ended after several weeks. Following the breakup, J.G. allegedly harassed her for months through calls, texts, and social media messages directed at her and her friends. Despite repeated requests from J.B. for J.G. to stop, the behavior continued, resulting in three arrests. In November 2021, J.G. pleaded guilty to one count of criminal contempt and one count of stalking.
J.B.’s legal theory against S.G. and S.G. rested on the notion that their financial support and failure to act constituted negligent infliction of emotional distress. However, the Westchester County Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against them, finding that J.B. had failed to state a valid cause of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed.
The AD2 focused on the essential elements of negligence: duty, breach, and causation. Central to the analysis was whether S.G. and S.G. owed any legal duty to J.B. or his daughter to prevent J.G.’s conduct. The court emphasized that duty is a matter of law, and without it, there can be no breach or liability. While courts sometimes impose a duty to control third parties under special circumstances, those did not apply here.
Importantly, J.G. was an emancipated adult. Under New York law, parents are not liable for the tortious or intentional acts of their emancipated children. The court cited precedent to reinforce this point, concluding that S.G. and S.G. had no legal duty to protect J.B. or his daughter from J.G.’s actions. Without such a duty, the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress could not proceed and the dismissal was upheld.
The decision highlights the boundaries of parental liability and the necessity of establishing a legal duty in negligence claims. While the emotional impact on J.B. and his daughter may have been profound, the law did not provide a basis for holding J.G.’s parents accountable for his conduct.
In other words, while stalking is a crime, being the perp’s parents ain't a tort … at least, not yet.
# # #
DECISION