Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress as a Cause of Action in New York
Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a legal claim that allows individuals to seek compensation for serious emotional suffering caused by someone else’s careless behavior. In New York, this claim is distinct from its better-known cousin, intentional infliction of emotional distress, because it does not require that the defendant acted with intent or malice. Instead, it focuses on whether the defendant was careless and whether that carelessness caused emotional harm that involved a real threat to the plaintiff’s safety.
Breach of a Duty That Endangered Physical Safety
To bring a successful NIED claim in New York, a plaintiff must first show that the defendant breached a legal duty of care that unreasonably endangered the plaintiff’s physical safety. This means the defendant must have acted (or failed to act) in a way that a reasonable person would consider dangerous. It’s not enough that the plaintiff simply felt upset. The emotional distress must arise from a situation where the plaintiff genuinely feared for their own physical well-being.
For example, if a driver runs a red light and narrowly misses hitting a pedestrian, that pedestrian could bring a claim for NIED if they suffered significant emotional trauma from the near-miss, even if they were never physically touched. The key factor is that the fear was reasonable, and that the situation placed them in actual physical danger.
Emotional Harm Must Stem from Personal Safety Fears
The emotional distress experienced by the plaintiff must stem from fear for their own safety, not from worry about someone else or general anxiety. Courts in New York are strict about this requirement. Emotional suffering caused by witnessing an accident involving a loved one, for example, would generally not qualify under NIED unless the plaintiff was also placed in danger.
Unlike intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff does not need to show that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous or intentional. Carelessness or recklessness is enough, so long as it leads to genuine emotional harm connected to the plaintiff’s personal safety.
No Requirement of Intent or Outrageous Conduct
One of the most important features of NIED in New York is that it does not require proof of intent to harm or behavior that is “extreme and outrageous.” This sets it apart from intentional infliction claims, which are much harder to prove. In NIED cases, the focus is on the outcome of the defendant’s negligence, not their state of mind or motivation.
Conclusion
Negligent infliction of emotional distress provides a legal remedy for those who suffer serious emotional trauma as a result of someone else’s negligence. In New York, the law limits this claim to situations where a person’s own physical safety was put at risk, and they experienced emotional harm as a result. It is not enough to simply feel distressed—the fear must come from a real and immediate threat. Because the law does not require proof of outrageous or intentional behavior, NIED offers a more accessible avenue for emotional harm claims, so long as they meet the clear standards established by New York courts.
Find the Law
“A cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress generally requires [the]plaintiff to show a breach of duty owed to [him or] her which unreasonably endangered [his or] her physical safety, or caused [him or] her to fear for [his or] her own safety”(A.M.P. v Benjamin, 201 A.D.3d 50, 57 [2d Dept 2021][emphasis added; citations and internal quotation marks omitted].” Kornblau v. Sauter, NY Slip Op 30419 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2025).
“However, intent to cause distress and extreme and outrageous conduct are not essential elements of a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (Id. at 7) [(Brown v New York Design Ctr., Inc., 215 A.D.3d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2023])].” Judah v. Behm, 2025 NY Slip Op 30045 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2025).