MARK OLYNYK VS. ROSA RICKETT, ESQ.(L-3302-13, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1493-14T3

Plaintiff Mark Olynyk sued attorneys Rosa Rickett, the Elfant Rickett Law Firm, and the Levine Law Firm after they represented his ex-wife in divorce proceedings, alleging malicious prosecution, malicious abuse/use of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In July 2011 Anna Olynyk called police about a dispute over a lockbox and cash; police investigated at plaintiff’s home but did not arrest or detain him.
Plaintiff alleges Rickett told an officer to arrest him and later made two written misrepresentations denying she requested an arrest; a private investigator purportedly corroborated the officer’s account.
Plaintiff claims defendants lied repeatedly to prolong the matrimonial litigation and to extract approximately $112,000 in fee awards from him.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e) for failure to state a claim; plaintiff cross-moved to amend malicious prosecution to malicious use of process.
The trial court granted dismissal; on appeal the Appellate Division reviewed the Rule 4:6-2(e) dismissal de novo and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint states a claim for malicious use/abuse of process	Rickett’s alleged lies and requests to arrest were part of a campaign to misuse process to coerce fees and prolong litigation	No arrest or judicial process issued; facts do not satisfy elements of abuse or malicious use of process	Dismissed — allegations insufficient; contrast to Tedards where an ex parte order and coercive use existed
Whether malicious prosecution claim is stated	Plaintiff contends defendants instituted criminal process by causing police involvement and seeking arrest	Defendants never instituted criminal proceedings; no prosecution was initiated	Dismissed — malicious prosecution requires institution of criminal process; absent here
Whether allegations support intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)	Plaintiff asserts defendants’ repeated lies and litigation tactics caused severe emotional distress	Conduct alleged, while improper, does not rise to the extreme, outrageous standard for IIED	Dismissed — conduct not sufficiently atrocious or intolerable to state IIED
Whether amendment and dismissal with prejudice were improper	Plaintiff sought leave to amend to plead malicious use of process; defendants did not oppose amendment on procedural grounds	Court found amendment would not cure legal deficiencies; dismissal on the merits appropriate	Affirmed — court properly denied effective amendment and dismissed with prejudice

Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (liberality in pleading; Rule 4:6-2(e) standards)
Tedards v. Auty, 232 N.J. Super. 541 (contrast case: ex parte order, misstatements, and coercive use of process)
LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 199 N.J. 62 (elements of malicious prosecution)
Thieme v. Aucoin-Thieme, 227 N.J. 269 (deference to Family Part factfinding and expertise)
Green v. Morgan Properties, 215 N.J. 431 (attorney rule violations do not automatically give rise to private tort claims)