Napoli Shkolnik's Marie Napoli, flanked by Hunter Shkolnik, left, and Paul Napoli, right.

Amid the long-running acrimony between lawyers formerly affiliated with the Napoli Bern law firm, a New York judge has narrowed Marie Napoli's nearly 3-year-old defamation suit against her husband's former law firm partner, Marc Bern, his attorney and a publicist.

While a judge on Tuesday allowed Marie Napoli's defamation and tort claims to continue, she dismissed several other claims, including for negligent infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

Marie Napoli's suit, which seeks $160 million in compensatory damages and $340 million in punitive damages, is one of the many filed in the aftermath of the 2014 epic breakup between former law firm partners Paul Napoli and Marc Bern of what was once 80-lawyer personal injury firm Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik. Napoli and Bern continue to be in litigation themselves in Napoli v. Bern.

For her part, Marie Napoli, Napoli's wife and now a founding partner at Napoli Shkolnik, filed a suit in 2015 against Bern; Clifford Robert, Bern's attorney; Brian Brick, who was general counsel of Bern's new firm; and The Parkside Group, a publicist who worked with Bern and Robert.

Marie Napoli's 190-paragraph complaint describes a relationship between her husband and Vanessa Dennis, a former associate at her husband's firm.

Marie Napoli learned of her husband's affair with Dennis in April 2013, when the private detective she had hired discovered that Dennis and Napoli shared a room while on a business trip in Chicago, according to the Aug. 14 decision by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carmen Victoria St. George.

Marie Napoli asserted that she fired Dennis as soon as her husband confirmed the affair and Bern negotiated the details of Dennis' departure from Napoli Bern on behalf of the firm and Marie Napoli. Dennis was paid a $150,000 severance package, despite Marie Napoli telling Bern not to give her a dime.

Shortly after litigation commenced between the law firm partners in Napoli v. Bern, Marc Bern and his attorney, Robert, argued in a proposed order to show cause that Marie Napoli's conduct had exposed the partnership to liability. Bern attached as an exhibit a draft complaint by Dennis against Marie Napoli.

Marie Napoli alleges that Bern and Robert, through their publicist, disseminated Bern's order to show cause papers to the media, including the draft of the Dennis complaint. Marie Napoli contends the draft complaint is “full of malicious, defamatory lies,” according to St. George's decision, and refers to it repeatedly as a sham complaint. She further alleges that after the dissemination of the draft complaint, the press covered the relationships of the Napolis and Dennis and reported false stories based on the draft complaint, causing her emotional distress and threatening her business as an attorney, according to St. George's decision.

In support of her abuse of process claim, Marie Napoli argued that Bern and Brick filed sham defamation actions against her in 2015 and 2016 to harass, defame and gain leverage in litigation.

Moving to dismiss the case, the defendants cited a 2016 decision by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Kathryn Freed that dismissed a libel suit brought by Marie Napoli against the New York Post. They argued Freed's decision, in that case, collaterally estops Marie Napoli from asserting defamation and that the draft complaint is protected by the litigation privilege.

But St. George, ruling on the motion to dismiss Tuesday, found there was no collateral estoppel effect because the “fair and true report” privilege is not at issue in this case. St. George said the question of whether the draft complaint was relevant to Bern's order to show cause was not before the court in the suit against the New York Post, and so Marie Napoli did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate it.

St. George also allowed Marie Napoli's prima facie tort claim, as an alternative claim, to continue, as well as her breach of fiduciary duty claim against Bern, but not against the other defendants.

However, St. George indicated the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is duplicative of the defamation claim and found Marie Napoli did not satisfy the elements needed for an abuse of process claim.

Further, “after careful consideration,” the judge dismissed the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, which exists when an individual or entity owing a duty of care harms the plaintiff, resulting in emotional damages.

“Ms. Napoli has not adequately alleged that defendants owed a duty to her,” St. George wrote.

In a statement, Marie Napoli said she was pleased with St. George's “well-reasoned decision,” noting her claims were sustained against Bern and Robert “for their unconscionable conduct.” She added, “We are confident that the discovery and eventual trial of this matter will result in a substantial damages award, which will be some small consolation for the harm Bern and Robert have done to my reputation.”

James Wicks, a partner at Farrell Fritz representing Robert, said they “respectfully disagree with the judge leaving in the defamation claim” and “we definitely plan to appeal.”

Nixon Peabody partner Joseph Ortego and counsel Santo Borruso, who represent Bern, Brick and The Parkside Group, did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Read More:

Judge Tosses Defamation Claims Against Napoli Firm

Tough Calls for Referee in New York Firm Breakup

Receiver Appointed to Forestall Crisis at Napoli Bern