a civilized community.’” Fleming v. Hymes-Esposito, 2013 WL 1285431, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2013) (quoting Murphy v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86, 90 (1983)). Indeed, courts in New York have disallowed IIED claims based on findings that various types of conduct, although highly anti-social and offensive, do not rise to the level of extremity and outrageousness required to plead an IIED claim. See, e.g., Anderson v. Abodeen, 29 A.D.3d 431, 816 N.Y.S.2d 415, 432 (2006) (plaintiffs allegations that his supervisor “displayed .., nude photos [of plaintiff]” in the workplace “does not show conduct sufficiently outrageous to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress”); Seltzer v. Bayer, 272 A.D.2d 263, 709 N.Y.S.2d 21, 23 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
holding that dumping a pile of cement on neighbors sidewalk tossing lighted cigarettes into his backyard throwing eggs on his front steps and threatening once to paint a swastika on his house  do not rise to the level of outrageousness or the kind of deliberate and malicious campaign of harassment or intimidation required to state an iied claim holding that a habeas petitioner was not entitled to relief from a state courts determination that he had forfeited his right to counsel by physically assaulting his attorney and threatening to put a contract on his attorneys life holding that defendant forfeited his right to counsel by verbally abusing and threatening to harm his attorney threatening to sue his attorney on four different occasions and attempting to persuade his attorney to engage in unethical conduct holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal holding that because plaintiffs iied claim is based on the facts that support plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim plaintiffs iied claim did not accrue until the charges against them were dismissed