MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff Maribeth Valada commenced this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Broome County, alleging causes of action for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) against Defendants Armand V. Cucciniello, Jr. (“Defendant Cucciniello”), Anthony DiGiovanni (“Defendant DiGiovanni”), and ATP Investigations LLC (“Defendant ATP”). See Dkt. No. 2. On July 5, 2022, this action was removed to federal court. See Dkt. No. 1. Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is granted. II. BACKGROUND According to the complaint, Plaintiff began employment as a property manager for Winding Brook Management Corp. (“Winding Brook”) and Holly Manor Associates LLC (“Holly Manor”) in November 2011. See Dkt. No. 2 at 5. Defendant Cucciniello was the director of property management at Winding Brook and Holly Manor and Plaintiff’s direct supervisor. See id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Cucciniello began making sexual advances toward her shortly after she was hired and used his managerial position to force Plaintiff to engage in intimate relations with him. See id. at 7. Defendant Cucciniello’s behavior continued until Plaintiff resigned from her position on March 10, 2022. See id. On March 10, 2022, Plaintiff sent a “demand letter” to Winding Brook and Holly Manor “seeking to resolve her claim without the need to resort to litigation.” Id. at 8.1 Winding Brook, Holly Manor, and Defendant Cucciniello sent a response letter on April 4, 2022, denying the allegations and alleging that “any long-term intimate relationship between [Plaintiff and Defendant Cucciniello] was purely consensual without any element of quid pro quo.” Id. at 16-17.2 This letter also asserted that Plaintiff was “a mature adult with a possible sordid background which we intend to fully explore and properly expose if [Defendant Cucciniello] is forced to defend himself and his business enterprise.” Id. at 17. The complaint alleges that Defendant Cucciniello thereafter retained Defendant ATP and Defendant DiGiovanni “for the purpose of defaming [P]laintiff, smearing her reputation, and otherwise maliciously seeking to intimidate and deter her from pursuing a sex discrimination claim…under the veneer of doing an investigation.” Id. at
9, 11. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant DiGiovanni contacted various New York residents3 and “falsely suggest[ed] to them that [P]laintiff was promiscuous, engaged in previous relationships with married men, made or threatened false claims of sexual harassment for money, and was dishonest in every-day dealings.” Id. at 15. Plaintiff specifically alleges that (a) On or about March 29, 2022, [D]efendant DiGiovanni contacted Dawn Moochler and interviewed her extensively, during which they had an interchange in which he asked Ms. Moochler did [Plaintiff] ever say anything about being depressed, to which she responded “No[,"] whereupon defendant asked her, “Did you know that she has been treated for depression?” (b) On or about March 29, 2022, [D]efendant DiGiovanni contacted Marty Lewis, [P]laintiff’s ex-husband, and falsely told Lewis that [P]laintiff “had made claims that you [Lewis] had physically abused her.” In a follow-up call to Lewis on or about April 6, [D]efendant DiGiovanni told Lewis he was calling as a “courtesy from one father to another” to let Lewis know he was going to be reaching out to speak to [P]laintiff’s two sons. (c) On or about April 6, 2022, [D]efendant DiGiovanni spoke in person with Joe DeGennaro, in the course of which [Defendant DiGiovanni] asked him, “Did you know [Plaintiff] is mentally unstable?”, “Did you know [Plaintiff] has a history of carrying on affairs with married men?”, and “Did you know [Plaintiff] has a history of claiming sexual harassment?” Id. The complaint also asserts that Defendant DiGiovanni sought to intimidate Plaintiff and “other individuals” “directly” by “untruthfully threatening to subpoena those individuals even though he knew at that time there was no legal action pending” and “was not an attorney.” Id. at 16. The complaint asserts two causes of action. See id. at
