# Hirsch v. Kairey

> District Court, E.D. New York · July 29, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11110606

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** July 29, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11110606

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x

ELLIOT HIRSCH,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER
22-CV-5064(EK)(VMS)

-against-

JAY BUTTERMAN,

Defendant.

------------------------------------x
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:

Elliot Hirsch’s now-ex wife, Elizabeth Kairey, sued
for divorce. In the wake of his divorce, Hirsch, proceeding pro
se, brought this action against Jay Butterman, Kairey’s divorce
attorney. Hirsch argues that Butterman improperly prevented
Kairey from settling the divorce proceedings so that Butterman
could use the ongoing litigation as leverage to obtain
concessions from Hirsch that were unrelated to the divorce
itself.
Invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Hirsch
asserts a single cause of action for abuse of process.1

1 Hirsch initially alleged several claims against both Kairey and
Butterman. Reviewing under Section 1915, this Court dismissed all causes of
action against Kairey and allowed only one claim, for abuse of process, to
proceed against Butterman. ECF No. 20. Though Hirsch is proceeding pro se,
he has passed the New Jersey bar examination and (as far as the record
reveals) is pending admission there. ECF No. 36. While “a court is
ordinarily obligated to afford a special solicitude to pro se litigants,”
when such a litigant has legal experience, as Hirsch does, “it falls well
Butterman has now moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
For the following reasons, that motion is granted.
I. Background

The following facts are drawn from the operative
complaint and assumed true for purposes of the motion to
dismiss. Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 332 (2d Cir. 2009).
Ms. Kairey commenced the divorce action in 2018. Mem. of Law in
Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.’s Br.”) at 10, ECF No.
30-9. Nearly three years later, with the divorce proceedings
still ongoing, Hirsch brought a separate action — filed in the
District of New Jersey, then transferred to this Court — against
Kairey’s aunt and cousins, later adding Kairey herself and
numerous others in her circle. Hirsch v. Beda et. al, No.
1:22-cv-5011 (hereinafter “Beda”). The defendants, Hirsch
alleged, had organized a campaign of defamation and harassment

against him for purportedly refusing to grant Kairey a religious
divorce under Jewish law. Beda, Amended Complaint ¶ 1, ECF No.
168. Hirsch brought claims under RICO, characterizing the
campaign as a racketeering enterprise, and under state tort law.
Id. ¶ 209–97.

within a district court’s discretion to lessen the solicitude that would
normally be afforded,” and “a lawyer representing himself ordinarily receives
no such solicitude at all.” Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101–02 (2d
Cir. 2010); United States v. Pierce, 649 F. App’x 117, 117 n.1 (2d Cir. 2016)
(disbarred lawyers also receive no special solicitude).
While both cases — the divorce action and the Beda
action — were pending, Hirsch and Kairey met at a hospital where
their daughter was being treated. Second Am. Compl. (“Compl.”)

¶ 9, ECF No. 25. Hirsch alleges that, during this meeting,
Kairey offered to settle their divorce on his terms in exchange
for Hirsch dropping her (but not her co-defendants) from the
Beda action. Id. ¶ 16. Hirsch agreed, and Kairey delivered the
news to Butterman by email. Id. ¶ 17.
As overheard by Hirsch, Butterman then called Kairey
and berated her for “leaving the community to the wolves” — that
is, for deserting the other Beda defendants, who belonged to
Kairey’s Syrian Jewish community. Id. ¶ 2l. According to
Hirsch, Butterman threatened to retroactively bill Kairey for
his pro bono legal services if she did not abandon her agreement
with Hirsch and instead insist that any divorce settlement would
be contingent on Hirsch dropping the Beda case in its entirety.
Id. ¶¶ 21, 24, 35, 37. Butterman’s coercion proved successful,

allowing the attorney to “maintain control over the legal
proceedings” and litigate the divorce to its conclusion. Id.
¶ 37. Throughout the process, Butterman “repeatedly” advised
Hirsch’s attorney that “he would not allow the case to settle
unless [Hirsch] dismissed [Beda] in totality.” Id. ¶ 45.
In Hirsch’s view, Butterman is liable for abuse of
process because he prevented the divorce case from settling,
against his own client’s wishes, to “extort, torment, harass,
and intimidate” Hirsch in pursuit of a collateral objective:
namely, obtaining a favorable outcome for the other Beda
defendants. Id. ¶ 21, 40, 49. Some of those defendants

allegedly paid Butterman “tens of thousands of dollars, if not
more.” Id. ¶¶ 41, 49. Butterman’s collateral objectives
included (1) inducing Hirsch to drop the Beda case, and (2)
“compelling” Hirsch through the ongoing divorce proceedings to
provide testimony and “other evidentiary documents” that
Butterman could then pass along to the Beda defendants. Id.
¶¶ 42, 52, 55, 61. Hirsch alleges that Butterman was further
motivated by a personal vendetta against him. Id. ¶¶ 24, 63.
Hirsch seeks compensatory damages for the “unjustified
legal fees” he incurred and “enduring emotional distress” he
suffered. Id. ¶ 66. He also seeks a declaratory judgment and

punitive damages totaling, together with the compensatory
damages, “not less than $5,000,000.” Id. at 12.
II. Discussion
Hirsch fails to state a claim of abuse of process. As
the Court earlier held and both parties agree, New York law
applies. ECF No. 20 at 12. As further described below, to
state an abuse of process claim under New York law, a plaintiff
must plausibly allege that the defendant (1) employed regularly
issued legal process to compel performance or forbearance of
some act (2) with intent to do harm without excuse or
justification (3) in order to obtain a collateral objective that
is outside the legitimate ends of the process. Cook v. Sheldon,
41 F.3d 73, 80 (2d Cir. 1994).2 In addition, the plaintiff must
(4) allege special damages.3 Bd. of Ed. of Farmingdale Union
Free Sch. Dist. v. Farmingdale Classroom Tchrs. Ass'n, Loc.

1889, 343 N.E.2d 278, 284 (N.Y. 1975). Hirsch does not satisfy
prongs (1) or (4).
A. Hirsch Does Not Identify A Legally Recognized
“Process”

Hirsch identifies “the matrimonial action” as the
legal process that Butterman ostensibly abused. Compl. ¶ 61.
He does not allege that Kairey initiated the divorce in bad
faith, or that the divorce action was itself abusive. Rather,
he sees abuse in Butterman’s improper continuation of Kairey’s
civil action, after the parties had purportedly reached an
agreement to settle it. The threshold question is whether such

2 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
3 Although New York law requires actual “or” special damages, these
terms denote the same standard of heightened particularity for a tort claim.
See Bohm v. Holzberg, 365 N.Y.S.2d 262, 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1975)
(“[A] cause of action for prima facie tort must contain a statement of
reasonably identifiable losses sustained by the plaintiff, i.e., only actual
or special damages can be recovered”). The operative distinction is instead
between “special damages” and “general damages.” See Lee S. Kreindler et
al., New York Law of Torts §§ 1:91, 21:5, 21:140 (2023). Therefore, this
Court follows the lead of others in referring to these only as “special
damages.” See, e.g., Stevens & Co. v. Espat, No. 24-CV-5223, 2025 WL 950989,
at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2025); Brown v. Bethlehem Terrace Assoc., 525
N.Y.S.2d 978, 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1988).
continuation did, in fact, entail the employment of a legally
recognized “process.”
New York courts have narrowly defined “process” as a

“direction or demand” causing some “interference with one’s
person or property.” Williams v. Williams, 246 N.E.2d 333, 335
(N.Y. 1969); see also HC2, Inc. v. Delaney, 510 F. Supp. 3d 86,
106 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Examples include “attachment, execution,
garnishment, or sequestration proceedings, or arrest of the
person, or criminal prosecution, or even such infrequent cases
as the use of a subpoena for the collection of a debt.”
Williams, 246 N.E.2d at 335 n.1 (quoting William Prosser, Torts
877–8 (3d ed. 1964)). The initiation of criminal prosecution,
including arrest or arraignment, can entail process. See, e.g.,
Cook, 41 F.3d at 80. This makes intuitive sense: whether a
defendant is detained pretrial, released on bond, or subjected

to supervised release, there is an interference with his person
or property. By contrast, the initiation of a civil lawsuit
does not necessarily entail interference with personal liberty
or property, and the New York courts have accordingly held that
it does not constitute “process” capable of being abused.
Curiano v. Suozzi, 469 N.E.2d 1324, 1326 (N.Y. 1984); Muro-
Light v. Farley, 944 N.Y.S.2d 571, 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t
2012); Stevens & Co. v. Espat, No. 24-CV-5223, 2025 WL 950989,
at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2025), reconsideration denied, No. 24-
CV-5223, 2025 WL 1425324 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2025).4
In the course of a civil suit, interference with

person or property could arise upon the court’s issuance of a
provisional remedy, such as a temporary restraining order. See
Anderson v. Pegalis, 540 N.Y.S.2d 843, 845 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d
Dep’t 1989). A subpoena issued by a party can also cause the
requisite interference, at least in extreme cases. See, e.g.,
Bd. of Ed. of Farmingdale, 343 N.E.2d at 278 (school board
stated valid claim where defendant had subpoenaed 87 of the
school board’s teachers to appear on a single day, with the aim
of disrupting its operations and forcing it to hire costly
substitutes); Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 443 N.Y.S.2d 439, 441 (N.Y.
App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1981) (defendant stated abuse of process
counterclaim against her estranged husband, who used subpoenas

to compel her attendance at more than sixty days of hearings,
with the aim of keeping her from working and exhausting her

4 Some federal courts have assumed, without deciding, that the
initiation of a civil action can be “process.” See, e.g., Demirovic v.
Ortega, No. 15-cv-327, 2016 WL 11472745, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15,
2016), aff'd, 771 F. App’x 111 (2d Cir. 2019) (no abuse of process where a
civil action to recover unpaid wages did not have a collateral objective);
BBF Partners LLC v. Mon Ethos Pro Consulting LLC, 20-cv-5544, 2022 WL 612974,
at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2022) (finding that it was not an abuse of process to
initiate a lawsuit with the aim of obtaining a settlement designed to relieve
the plaintiff of liability to the defendant for breach of contract). These
opinions do not explicitly identify the initiation of a civil suit as
process. Rather, they bypass this prong of the tort and proceed directly to
explaining why the third prong, the existence of a collateral objective, was
not met.
financial resources). But absent one of these or similar
devices, the continuation of civil litigation cannot constitute
“process” for the same reason that the initiation thereof

cannot: the burden of defending a suit, no matter how frivolous,
does not necessarily interfere with person or property. See
Teddy Volkswagen of the Bronx, LLC v. Demersky, No. 19-CV-2337,
2020 WL 6424115, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2020) (allegations of
“frivolous claims, extensive discovery, unnecessary motion
practice, and other bad-faith perversions of legitimate legal
process” fail to specify process capable of abuse). Neither
party surfaced, nor has this Court found, a single court in this
circuit or New York state that has held — or even assumed — that
the mere continuation of a civil suit is “process.”
Hirsch does not allege that any qualifying device
(such as a subpoena) was improperly used here. He does argue in

his brief that he was “[c]ompell[ed] . . . to attend court
proceedings under threat of contempt.” Pl.’s Decl. in Opp’n to
Mot. to Dismiss (“Opp’n.”) ¶ 12, ECF No. 33. In his complaint,
he alleges he was “compel[led] . . . to testify and provide
[Butterman] with other forms of material evidence for purposes
of providing said material to the [d]efendants in [the Beda]
action.” Compl. ¶ 61. But he cites no case for the proposition
that a deposition can qualify as abusive process, and he
references no subpoena actually issued or contempt proceeding
actually held.
Because Butterman’s alleged prevention of settlement

did not directly result in interference with Hirsch’s person or
property beyond prolonging the ordinary burdens of defending a
civil suit, it does not constitute “process.”
B. Hirsch Does Not Allege Special Damages
Hirsch’s claim falters for a second, independent
reason. To state a claim for abuse of process, a plaintiff must
allege special damages. See, e.g., Stevens & Co., 2025 WL
950989, at *11; Mitchell v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 05-cv-4957,
2007 WL 1580068, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. May 24, 2007), adhered to on
reconsideration, No. CV-05-4957, 2008 WL 1803644 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.
17, 2008) (holding that plaintiff’s abuse of process claim fails
as a matter of law because of failure to plead special damages).

Special damages are “specific and measurable losses,
. . . which must be alleged with sufficient particularity to
identify actual losses and be related causally to the alleged
tortious acts.” Morea v. Saywitz, No. 09-CV-3935, 2010 WL
475302, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2010). Round numbers and
general allegations are insufficient. Kanciper v. Lato, 989 F.
Supp. 2d 216, 237 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).
Hirsch refers only to “unjustified legal fees” (the
nature of which he does not specify) and “emotional distress”
before arriving at a requested award of “not less than
$5,000,000.” Compl. ¶ 66. Hirsch’s sole allegations of damages
thus consist only of general allegations and round numbers. He

therefore has failed to allege special damages.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim is granted with prejudice.5 A pro
se litigant should generally be given at least one chance to
replead. See Ganley v. City of New York, 734 F. App’x 784, 786
(2d Cir. 2018). Hirsch has had two such chances, including
following a pre-motion conference on Butterman’s motion to
dismiss. See ECF No. 6; Docket Order, Oct. 25, 2023. Moreover,
Butterman moved to dismiss the case with prejudice and Hirsch
did not request leave to amend in his response. See Solomon v.
Flipps Media, Inc., 136 F.4th 41,55-56 (2d Cir. 2025) (dismissal

without leave to amend appropriate when leave to amend requested
only in a conclusory footnote and without identifying what
changes would be made). The Court declines to grant leave to
amend sua sponte. Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d 364, 370 (2d Cir.

5 Butterman additionally raises the affirmative defense of collateral
estoppel, arguing this issue was decided during the divorce proceeding, but
this defense is flawed. In the divorce suit, Hirsch’s cross-motion
containing his allegations against Butterman was denied without prejudice
“due to his default for failing to appear” in court. Ex. D at 2, ECF No. 30-
5. Thus, the issue was never “actually litigated” for purposes of
determining issue preclusion. Kaufman v. Eli Lilly & Co., 482 N.E.2d 63, 68
(N.Y. 1985).
2011) (“[N]o court can be said to have erred in failing to grant
a request that was not made.”).
This case shall be dismissed with prejudice and the

Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the case.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United State

s District Judge

D ated: July 29, 2025
Brooklyn, New

York

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11110606. Public record. Not legal advice.