Brian Leyden / New York Law Firm Accused of Prima Facie

The prima facie tort doctrine exists on the fringes of tort law as a theory that allows a plaintiff to recover for damage resulting from a defendant's intentional and malicious infliction of harm. 

Under this theory, a court's inquiry focuses on the defendant's motivations and intentions to determine whether liability should be imposed.  Courts have used this general doctrine to establish a separate cause of action, the prima facie tort.  Alternatively, they have used the theory to justify imposing liability under other causes of action by expanding existing torts or by creating new ones. The courts' various approaches to treatment and application of the prima facie tort doctrine arise from different and often incompatible interpretations of the tort's purpose and required elements. 

The prima facie tort is generally defined as the "infliction of intentional harm, resulting in damages, without excuse or justification, by an act or series of acts which would otherwise be lawful."  

The specific applications of this definition vary greatly based on the manner in which courts interpret these elements. These divergencies in interpretation lead courts to apply the prima facie tort in inconsistent ways. The courts' confusion in interpretation has three focal points: defining "otherwise lawful," understanding the role of malice in applying the tort, and incorporating "excuse" or "justification" as grounds for denying liability. 

The destruction of Joel Leyden's home, an action defended by New York Law Firm in direct conflict
with a Trust that they authored and represent, will be addressed in a 10 million dollar lawsuit.