prima facie tort claim in New York

2024The prima facie tort claim, insofar as asserted by Consolidated, fails because the basis of the tort, the alleged defamatory statements made about its CEO, were not "of and concerning" Consolidated ( Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. , 28 NY3d 82 , 86-87 [2016]; see also Cohn v National Broadcasting Co. , 67 AD2d 140, 146 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 885 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1022 [1980]).

2024The prima facie tort claim, insofar as asserted by Consolidated, fails because the basis of the tort, the alleged defamatory statements made about its CEO, were not "of and concerning" Consolidated ( Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. , 28 NY3d 82, 86-87 [2016]; see also Cohn v National Broadcasting Co. , 67 AD2d 140, 146 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 885 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1022 [1980]).

2024Consolidated's claims for tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage failed ftlineon their face, as they did not plead the requisite elements, including defendants' knowledge of its business relationships and/or contracts with third parties ( see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney , 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]; Amaranth LLC v J.P.

2024Consolidated's claims for tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage fail on their face as it did not [*14]plead the requisite elements, including defendants' knowledge of its business relationships and/or contracts with third parties ( see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney , 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]; Amaranth LLC v J.P.

2024The prima facie tort claim, insofar as asserted by Consolidated, fails because the basis of the tort, the alleged defamatory statements made about its CEO, were not "of and concerning" Consolidated ( Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. , 28 NY3d 82 , 86-87 [2016]; see also Cohn v National Broadcasting Co. , 67 AD2d 140, 146 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 885 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1022 [1980]).

2024The prima facie tort claim, insofar as asserted by Consolidated, fails because the basis of the tort, the alleged defamatory statements made about its CEO, were not "of and concerning" Consolidated ( Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. , 28 NY3d 82, 86-87 [2016]; see also Cohn v National Broadcasting Co. , 67 AD2d 140, 146 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 885 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1022 [1980]).

2024The prima facie tort claim, insofar as asserted by Consolidated, fails because the basis of the tort, the alleged defamatory statements made about its CEO, were not "of and concerning" Consolidated ( Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. , 28 NY3d 82 , 86-87 [2016]; see also Cohn v National Broadcasting Co. , 67 AD2d 140, 146 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 885 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1022 [1980]).

2024The prima facie tort claim, insofar as asserted by Consolidated, fails because the basis of the tort, the alleged defamatory statements made about its CEO, were not "of and concerning" Consolidated ( Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. , 28 NY3d 82, 86-87 [2016]; see also Cohn v National Broadcasting Co. , 67 AD2d 140, 146 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 885 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1022 [1980]).

2024The prima facie tort claim, insofar as asserted by Consolidated, fails because the basis of the tort, the alleged defamatory statements made about its CEO, were not "of and concerning" Consolidated ( Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. , 28 NY3d 82 , 86-87 [2016]; see also Cohn v National Broadcasting Co. , 67 AD2d 140, 146 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 885 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1022 [1980]).

2024The prima facie tort claim, insofar as asserted by Consolidated, fails because the basis of the tort, the alleged defamatory statements made about its CEO, were not "of and concerning" Consolidated ( Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. , 28 NY3d 82, 86-87 [2016]; see also Cohn v National Broadcasting Co. , 67 AD2d 140, 146 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 885 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1022 [1980]).

2024The court properly dismissed the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim as duplicative to the extent it was based on the same facts underlying the breach of contract claim ( Logan Advisors, LLC v Patriarch Partners, LLC , 63 AD3d 440, 443 [1st Dept 2009]).

2024The court properly dismissed the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim as duplicative to the extent it was based on the same facts underlying the breach of contract claim ( Logan Advisors, LLC v Patriarch Partners, LLC , 63 AD3d 440, 443 [1st Dept 2009]).

2024Reeves' cause of action for prima facie tort was also duplicative of the defamation claim ( see Matthaus v Hadjedj , 148 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2017]; Fleischer , 104 AD3d at 538-539). [*14]The prima facie tort claim, insofar as asserted by Consolidated, fails because the basis of the tort, the alleged defamatory statements made about its CEO, were not "of and concerning" Consolidated ( Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. , 28 NY3d 82, 86-87 [2016]; see also Cohn v National Broadcasting Co. , 67 AD2d 140, 146 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 885 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1022 [1980]).

2024Reeves' cause of action for prima facie tort was also duplicative of the defamation claim ( see Matthaus v Hadjedj , 148 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2017]; Fleischer , 104 AD3d at 538-539). [*14]The prima facie tort claim, insofar as asserted by Consolidated, fails because the basis of the tort, the alleged defamatory statements made about its CEO, were not "of and concerning" Consolidated ( Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. , 28 NY3d 82, 86-87 [2016]; see also Cohn v National Broadcasting Co. , 67 AD2d 140, 146 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 885 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1022 [1980]).

2024Bank of N. Carolina , 234 AD2d 187, 189-190 [1st Dept 1996]), and the absence of special damages requires dismissal of the prima facie tort claim (see Freihofer v Hearst Corp. , 65 NY2d 135 , 142-143 [1985]).

2024Bank of N. Carolina , 234 AD2d 187, 189-190 [1st Dept 1996]), and the absence of special damages requires dismissal of the prima facie tort claim (see Freihofer v Hearst Corp. , 65 NY2d 135 , 142-143 [1985]).

2024Reeves' cause of action for prima facie tort was also duplicative of the defamation claim ( see Matthaus v Hadjedj , 148 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2017]; Fleischer , 104 AD3d at 538-539). [*14]The prima facie tort claim, insofar as asserted by Consolidated, fails because the basis of the tort, the alleged defamatory statements made about its CEO, were not "of and concerning" Consolidated ( Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. , 28 NY3d 82, 86-87 [2016]; see also Cohn v National Broadcasting Co. , 67 AD2d 140, 146 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 885 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1022 [1980]).

2024Reeves' cause of action for prima facie tort was also duplicative of the defamation claim ( see Matthaus v Hadjedj , 148 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2017]; Fleischer , 104 AD3d at 538-539). [*14]The prima facie tort claim, insofar as asserted by Consolidated, fails because the basis of the tort, the alleged defamatory statements made about its CEO, were not "of and concerning" Consolidated ( Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. , 28 NY3d 82, 86-87 [2016]; see also Cohn v National Broadcasting Co. , 67 AD2d 140, 146 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 885 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1022 [1980]).

2012Inasmuch as the complaint did not adequately allege extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support plaintiffs claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress or special damages to support a prima facie tort claim (see Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 121-122 [1993], mod 82 NY2d 690 [1993]; Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135 , 142-143 [1985]), Supreme Court properly dismissed those causes of action.

2012Inasmuch as the complaint did not adequately allege extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support plaintiffs claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress or special damages to support a prima facie tort claim (see Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 121-122 [1993], mod 82 NY2d 690 [1993]; Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135 , 142-143 [1985]), Supreme Court properly dismissed those causes of action.

2007An at-will employee has “no viable claim for a wrongful discharge or breach of contract action against an employer and a prima facie tort claim cannot be utilized to circumvent the unavailability of those claims” (Lerwick v Kelsey, 24 AD3d 931, 932 [2005]; see Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales, 73 NY2d 183, 188 [1989]).

2005For that reason, there can be no viable claim for a wrongful discharge or breach of contract action against an employer and a prima facie tort claim cannot be utilized to circumvent the unavailability of those claims (see Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales, 73 NY2d 183, 188-189 [1989]; Murphy v American Home Prods.

2019The prima facie tort claim was correctly dismissed because the record demonstrates that motives other than "disinterested malevolence" lie behind the publication of the Watchlist ( see Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner , 59 NY2d 314, 333 [1983]; Brook v Peconic Bay Med.

1991(See, Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 332-333 ; and see, Board of Educ. v Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., 38 NY2d 397, 406 .) Plaintiffs also challenge the IAS Court’s decision with regards to the counterclaims sounding in fraudulent inducement (the 4th and 5th counterclaims).

2018Further, a prima facie tort claim cannot be used to circumvent the fact that, as an at-will employee, plaintiff had no viable cause of action for wrongful discharge or breach of contract ( see Beck v Cornell Univ. , 42 AD3d 609, 610 [2007]; Lernick v Kelsey , 24 AD3d at 932 ).

2007An at-will employee has “no viable claim for a wrongful discharge or breach of contract action against an employer and a prima facie tort claim cannot be utilized to circumvent the unavailability of those claims” (Lerwick v Kelsey, 24 AD3d 931, 932 [2005]; see Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales, 73 NY2d 183, 188 [1989]).

2019Ctr. , 152 AD3d 436, 438-439 [1st Dept 2017]).

2018Further, a prima facie tort claim cannot be used to circumvent the fact that, as an at-will employee, plaintiff had no viable cause of action for wrongful discharge or breach of contract ( see Beck v Cornell Univ. , 42 AD3d 609, 610 [2007]; Lernick v Kelsey , 24 AD3d at 932 ).

2018Supreme Court properly dismissed the prima facie tort claim as it pled dual motives when making allegations regarding this claim (i.e., that defendant was seeking to take revenge on plaintiffs and that defendant was attempting to force plaintiffs out so it could re-let the premises at a higher rental rate) ( see Wigdor v SoulCycle, LLC , 139 AD3d 613, 614 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 906 [2016]; AREP Fifty-Seventh, LLC v PMGP Assoc., L.P. , 115 AD3d 402 , 403 [1st Dept 2014][same]).

2008The prima facie tort claim failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether malevolence was the sole motive for defendants’ otherwise lawful act (see Slifer-Weickel, Inc. v Meteor Skelly, 140 AD2d 320, 322-323 [1988]).

2008The claim for interference with prospective economic advantage failed to allege a motive of malice or the infliction of injury by unlawful means other than self-interest or other economic considerations (see Matter of Entertainment Partners Group v Davis, 198 AD2d 63, 64 [1993]).

2007Even if such a cause of action were available to plaintiff, he failed to plead special damages, a necessary element (see Cavanaugh v Doherty, 243 AD2d 92, 101 [1998]; see also Landor-St.

2005Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 303-304 [1983]; LaDuke v Lyons, 250 AD2d 969, 973 [1998]; Boyle v Stiefel Labs., 204 AD2d 872, 876 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 803 [1994]).

2005Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 303-304 [1983]; LaDuke v Lyons, 250 AD2d 969, 973 [1998]; Boyle v Stiefel Labs., 204 AD2d 872, 876 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 803 [1994]).

2005Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 303-304 [1983]; LaDuke v Lyons, 250 AD2d 969, 973 [1998]; Boyle v Stiefel Labs., 204 AD2d 872, 876 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 803 [1994]).

1970(See, e.g., Clark v. Associated Retail Credit Men, 105 F. 2d 62, 65 [Ct. App., D.C.].) Apart, however, from the foregoing allegations which we find inadequate to spell out a cause of action for invasion of privacy under District of Columbia law, the complaint contains allegations concerning other activities by the appellant or its agents which do satisfy the requirements for such a cause of action.