HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017842.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 7717 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d_ 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) of action for trespass under New York law pursuant to concerted action theory. 86. Damages €757.14, 57.27 In New York, a plaintiff may establish negligent infliction of emotional distress under the bystander or direct duty theory. 87. Damages €°57.27 Under the bystander theory for prov- ing negligent infliction of emotional dis- tress under New York law, a defendant’s conduct is negligent as creating an unrea- sonable risk of bodily harm to a plaintiff, and such conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about injuries to the plaintiff in consequence of shock or fright resulting from his or her contemporaneous observa- tion of serious physical injury or death inflicted by the defendant’s conduct on a member of the plaintiff's immediate family in his or her presence. 88. Damages €-57.14 Under the direct duty theory for proving negligent infliction of emotional distress under New York law, a plaintiff suffers emotional distress caused by defen- dant’s breach of a duty which unreason- ably endangered the plaintiff's own physi- cal safety. 89. Negligence <=202 To establish a claim for negligence under New York law, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a cognizable duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a proximate cause of that breach. 90. Negligence <=210 The most basic element of a negli- gence claim under New York law is the existence of a duty owed to plaintiffs by defendants. 91. Banks and Banking <-100 Under New York negligence law, banks do not owe non-customers a duty to protect them from the intentional torts of their customers. 92. Damages €757.18 Negligence <=210 Survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks failed to state causes of action in complaint against alleged supporters of terrorists for negligence and negligent in- fliction of emotional distress, inasmuch as they failed to allege or identify duty owed to them by defendants. 93. War and National Emergency <=50 In light of extreme nature of charge of terrorism, fairness required extra-careful scrutiny of allegations by survivors of vic- tims of September 11, 2001 attacks as to any particular defendant, to ensure that he, or it, had fair notice of claims, includ- ing claims under Antiterrorism Act (ATA). 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. 94. Banks and Banking ¢=226 Allegations in complaint by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, that Saudi Arabian bank aided and abetted terrorists by donating to charities and act- ing as bank for charities, failed to state cause of action under Antiterrorism Act (ATA) against bank, in that survivors of- fered no facts to support conclusion that bank knew of charities’ alleged support for terrorism, and failed to allege relationship between Hamas, with which bank allegedly had ties, and September 11 terrorists. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. 95. Conspiracy 1.1 Torts 21 Under New York law, concerted ac- tion liability, pursuant to a conspiracy or aiding and abetting theory, requires gener- al knowledge of the primary actor’s con- duct. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017842