Aggravated Harassment Dismissed: Email Was Not a True Threat

Our client, a New York City businessman and owner of a women’s clothing store, was charged with aggravated harassment over language used in an email to a project manager overseeing the build-out of one of his retail leases. The email, part of a long, ordinary chain of correspondence about construction logistics, included a frustrated remark that prosecutors characterized as a threat of physical harm.

Attorney Steven Brill moved to dismiss, arguing the statement was facially insufficient to constitute harassment under New York law. Drawing on Court of Appeals precedent holding that crude, vague or hyperbolic language — even when angrily worded — does not rise to the level of a “true threat” absent evidence it was seriously meant or confirmed by other conduct, the motion argued that our client’s statement was conditional, vague, and entirely consistent with frustration over an ongoing landlord-tenant relationship rather than any genuine intent to cause harm.

The Court agreed and dismissed the case in its entirety.