What is worse - lying to get sex, or being so gullible as to believe anything a guy will say? It is a tough call in the facts that were before the First Department yesterday in Marmelstein v Kehillat New Hempstead: Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue, 2007 NY Slip Op 06504. Legally, however, the issues were not so hard to decide thanks to an often forgotten provision of the Civil Rights Law - section 80-a. Every woman (and I suppose everyone) should keep Civil Rights Law § 80-a in mind the next time some guy starts telling you things that just don't seem right. Let the following facts be a cautionary tale.
In 1994, Adina Marmelstein became acquainted with defendant Mordecai Tendler, the founder and spiritual leader of a synagogue. Defendant Tendler was known within the Orthodox Jewish community as a scholar, educator and community leader. He also held himself out as a counselor and advisor with an expertise in women's issues [There was the first hint. Watch out for any man who claims to be an expert in woman's issues]. In 1996, Marmelstein began attending services at the synagogue, and Tendler began advising her with respect to her personal, legal and financial problems. He also represented that he would assist her in finding a prospective husband so she would be able to marry and have children. Lo and behold, beginning in November 2000, the two began a sexual relationship that lasted through May 2005.
Plaintiff Marmelstein claimed that she was induced by defendant Tendler to engage in this physical relationship "as part of a course of sexual therapy which he represented would lead to her achieving her goals of marriage and children." He told her she was "closed to the possibility of finding a husband" and "would never find a husband in her current state." He advised her "to permit him to have sexual intercourse with her so that her life will open up and men will come to her." He also told her he "was as close to God as anyone could get," and engaging in sexual relations with him would be her "only hope."
Plaintiff Marmelstein did not find another man for a husband. And she eventually saw the light that defendant Tendler was not a God. She alleged that Tendler "physically and emotionally abused [her] for his own sexual pleasure and gratification," and warned that if she told anyone about their sexual relationship he "would have her placed in a straight jacket," "have her put in the penitentiary," and "would turn the community against her." She thus commenced an action against the synagogue and Tendler asserting causes of action for fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The first two causes of action were dismissed by the lower court and plaintiff did not appeal their dismissal. Only the breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims came before the First Department.
As to the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the complaint alleged that defendant "occupied a position as fiduciary to the plaintiff . . . as her counselor, advisor and therapist and owed her a relationship of trust and confidence," which he breached. Plaintiff asserted that she was physically violated, her reputation impugned, and that she was ostracized from her synagogue and lost her standing in the community. The claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress alleged that defendant engaged in conduct - including falsely inducing plaintiff into a sexual relationship, physically violating and abusing her, and causing her to be harassed, threatened, intimidated and ostracized by the community - which would and did result in severe emotional distress.
The First Department dismissed both of these remaining causes of action relying on Civil Rights Law § 80-a. It provides:
The rights of action to recover sums of money as damages for alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction, or breach of contract to marry are abolished. No act done within this state shall operate to give rise . . . to any such right of action.
The First Department noted that seduction is broadly defined in the case law as any conduct on the part of a man, without the use of force, in wrongfully inducing a woman to surrender to his sexual desires. And the Court found that the plaintiff's allegations, boiled down to their essence, came within the ambit of Civil Rights Law § 80-a, and thus, were not actionable.
What a line! - "Have sex with me, and other men will want you." I hope there are not more such gullible woman out there.
You weren't raised in a cult community. What would you know?
Posted by: No Longer Silent | August 24, 2007 at 05:44 PM