New York does not recognize a civil cause of action for harassment ( see Jacobs v. 200 E. 36th Owners Corp., 281 AD2d 281). Giving plaintiff's allegations every favorable intendment, they appear to seek recovery for emotional distress intentionally inflicted by means of abusive lawsuits and breaches of the warranty of habitability. However, the documentary evidence conclusively establishes that none of the three proceedings instituted by defendant against plaintiff were brought without justification, and, except as authorized by court order, no process was employed that interfered with plaintiff's person or property ( see Matter of Walentas v. Johnes, 257 AD2d 352, 354, lv dismissed 93 NY2d 958; Artzt v. Greenburger, 161 AD2d 389, 390). Plaintiff should have raised any warranty of habitability claims in the nonpayment proceeding that was settled or in the holdover proceeding that resulted in her eviction. In any event, the alleged breaches of the warranty fall short of the extreme, outrageous conduct necessary to support a cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress ( see Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 121-122).