tortious interference claim in New York

2017As to the tortious interference claim, the record shows that defendant did not procure the Kaplans’ breach of the assignment agreement (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]).

2009Since the breach of a contract is an essential element of a tortious interference claim (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]), plaintiff cannot prevail on this cause of action as a matter of law.

2024One of the elements of a tortious interference claim is damages ( see White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v Cintas Corp., 8 NY3d 422, 426 [2007]).

2024One of the elements of a tortious interference claim is damages ( see White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v Cintas Corp., 8 NY3d 422, 426 [2007]).

2025Plans, Inc. , 299 AD2d 513, 514 , 750 N.Y.S.2d 629, 631 (2d Dept. 2002), and the tortious interference claim, see Ullmannglass v. Oneida, Ltd. , 86 AD3d 827, 829 , 927 N.Y.S.2d 702 , 705 (3d Dept. 2011), are both time-barred on their face, as these claims expired in 2021 (taking the Executive Order extensions into account).

2025Plans, Inc. , 299 AD2d 513, 514 , 750 N.Y.S.2d 629, 631 (2d Dept. 2002), and the tortious interference claim, see Ullmannglass v. Oneida, Ltd. , 86 AD3d 827, 829 , 927 N.Y.S.2d 702 , 705 (3d Dept. 2011), are both time-barred on their face, as these claims expired in 2021 (taking the Executive Order extensions into account).

2017The tortious interference claim was properly sustained insofar as it was premised on emails sent by defendant to a key investor, but not insofar as it was premised on comments made by defendant’s attorney that were quoted in various news articles. *656 As to the emails, plaintiff adequately pled that defendant’s conduct was unlawful or for the sole purpose of inflicting intentional harm on plaintiff (see Carvel Corp. v Noonan, 3 NY3d 182, 190 [2004]) — as we observed in a related action premised on these same emails (see Rebecca Broadway L.P. v Hotton, 143 AD3d 71, 77 [1st Dept 2016]).

2008The tortious interference claim was insufficient because it failed to allege that defendant had directed his fraudulent conduct at a specific third party, that said party would have hired plaintiff but for defendant’s misconduct, and that defendant’s wrongful conduct was motivated solely by an intent to injure plaintiff (see Carvel Corp. v Noonan, 3 NY3d 182 [2004]).

2023Instead, they assert the tortious interference claim against Akiva based on a "common-law duty extraneous [*3]to the contract not to act wilfully to destroy the property of another" ( Apple Records v Capitol Records, 137 AD2d 50, 56 [1st Dept 1988] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2023Instead, they assert the tortious interference claim against Akiva based on a "common-law duty extraneous [*3]to the contract not to act wilfully to destroy the property of another" ( Apple Records v Capitol Records, 137 AD2d 50, 56 [1st Dept 1988] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2023Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634-636 [1976]).

2023Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634-636 [1976]).

2021Steinberg v Schnapp , 73 AD3d 171, 176 [1st Dept 2010]).

2021Steinberg v Schnapp , 73 AD3d 171, 176 [1st Dept 2010]).

2021The allegations of the complaint do not establish a continuity of ownership following AOG's purchase of defendant Pa Co-Man, Inc.'s assets from third-party secured creditors, and therefore fail to establish that the asset purchase transaction was a de facto merger ( see Matter of TBA Global, LLC v Fidus Partners, LLC, 132 AD3d 195, 209-210 [1st Dept 2015]).

2021The allegations of the complaint do not establish a continuity of ownership following AOG's purchase of defendant Pa Co-Man, Inc.'s assets from third-party secured creditors, and therefore fail to establish that the asset purchase transaction was a de facto merger ( see Matter of TBA Global, LLC v Fidus Partners, LLC, 132 AD3d 195, 209-210 [1st Dept 2015]).

2020To support a tortious interference claim, New York law requires that the contract would not have been breached "but for" the defendant's conduct ( Burrowes v Combs , 25 AD3d 370, 373 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 704 [2006]; CDR Creances S.A. v Euro-American Lodging Corp. , 40 AD3d 421, 422 [1st Dept 2007]).

2018The tortious interference claim should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that the contract "would not have been breached but for' the defendant's conduct" ( Burrowes v Combs , 25 AD3d 370, 373 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 704 [2006]).

2014Dismissal of the defamation claim also requires dismissal of the tortious interference claim, since that is the basis for the allegation that defendant’s conduct was “otherwise unlawful” (see Phillips v Carter, 58 AD3d 528, 528 [1st Dept 2009]).

2014Dismissal of the defamation claim also requires dismissal of the tortious interference claim, since that is the basis for the allegation that defendant’s conduct was “otherwise unlawful” (see Phillips v Carter, 58 AD3d 528, 528 [1st Dept 2009]).

2014As we have already noted, because Kagalovsky completely dominated and controlled Iota LI] and because he used that domination and control to commit wrongdoing— that is, to dilute the partnership’s ownership of TVi—Iota LP is Kagalovsky’s alter ego (see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141 [1993]).

2014As we have already noted, because Kagalovsky completely dominated and controlled Iota LI] and because he used that domination and control to commit wrongdoing— that is, to dilute the partnership’s ownership of TVi—Iota LP is Kagalovsky’s alter ego (see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141 [1993]).

2013The pertinence of the statements negates any finding of abuse of the judicial proceedings privilege (see Sexter, 38 AD3d at 172 ; compare Halperin v Salvan, 117 AD2d 544 , 548 [1st Dept 1986]).

2013The pertinence of the statements negates any finding of abuse of the judicial proceedings privilege (see Sexter, 38 AD3d at 172 ; compare Halperin v Salvan, 117 AD2d 544 , 548 [1st Dept 1986]).

2013The allegedly defamatory allegations were broadly pertinent to the tortious interference claim, as they bore on the mother’s intent, provided the context for the dispute, and supported the claim for punitive damages (see Pomerance v McTiernan, 51 AD3d 526, 528 [1st Dept 2008]).

2013The allegedly defamatory allegations were broadly pertinent to the tortious interference claim, as they bore on the mother’s intent, provided the context for the dispute, and supported the claim for punitive damages (see Pomerance v McTiernan, 51 AD3d 526, 528 [1st Dept 2008]).

2009Corp., 50 NY2d 183 [1980].) Defamation is a predicate wrongful act for a tortious interference claim.

2004NOTES [1] We have defined wrongful means "as representing `physical violence, fraud or misrepresentation, civil suits and criminal prosecutions, and some degrees of economic pressure; they do not, however, include persuasion alone although it is knowingly directed at interference with the contract'" ( NBT, 87 NY2d at 624 , quoting Guard-Life, 50 NY2d at 191 ). [2] Of course, we agree with the majority that conduct rising to the level of an independent tort or a crime, or conduct aimed solely at harming a plaintiff, would also support a tortious interference claim. [3] In discussing "economic p

2017Specifically, plaintiff alleged that, in sending the emails, defendant misappropriated confidential information he was privy to as a result of his position as the musical’s press agent and committed the independent tort of defamation (see Stapleton Studios, LLC v City of New York, 26 AD3d 236 [1st Dept 2006]).

2014(See Stapleton Studios, LLC v City of New York, 26 AD3d 236, 237 [1st Dept 2006] [sustaining tortious interference claim based on slander and business defamation allegations where statements were “reasonably susceptible of defamatory connotation”]; UMG Recs., Inc. v Escape Media Group, Inc., 37 Misc 3d 208, 225 [Sup Ct, NY County 2012] [deeming representations misstating the nature of defendant’s business sufficient to state tortious interference counterclaim].) Accordingly, plaintiffs have not alleged that the misrepresentations constituted an “independent tort” and therefore have not satisfi

2026NO. 234 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026 benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determining only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory,” Thebes has adequately pleaded the requisite elements of a tortious interference claim (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v ADF Operating Corp., 50 AD3d 280 [1st Dept 2008] [finding that tortious interference claim was adequately pled] [citation omitted]).

2017Accordingly, they do not have an economic interest defense to the tortious interference claim asserted against them (see White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v Cintas Corp., 8 NY3d 422, 426 [2007]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v ADF Operating Corp., 50 AD3d 280, 281 [1st Dept 2008]).

2004Group, Inc. ( 87 NY2d 614 [1996]), we relied on Guard-Life in affirming the dismissal of a tortious interference claim by a financial institution against a competing bank, holding that the plaintiff produced insufficient evidence that the defendant employed wrongful means. 1 Here, Carvel was not a “competitor” of its franchisees within the meaning of the Restatement.

2004Group, Inc. ( 87 NY2d 614 [1996]), we relied on Guard-Life in affirming the dismissal of a tortious interference claim by a financial institution against a competing bank, holding that the plaintiff produced insufficient evidence that the defendant employed wrongful means. [1] Here, Carvel was not a "competitor" of its franchisees within the meaning of the Restatement.

2025Murphy v City of New York, 59 AD3d 301,301 [l5t Dept 2009] [affirming dismissal oftortious interference claim finding, among other things, that plaintiff "failed to demonstrate the existence of a job offer" that defendants purportedly interfered with] [citations omitted]; see also Brook v Peconic Bay Med.

2025In considering whether the defamation exception to (a) (2) or (a) (3) longarm jurisdiction applies, courts must "look[] for the reality and the essence of the action and not its mere name." ( Findlay v Duthuit , 86 AD2d 789, 790 [1st Dept 1982]; cf. Entertainment Partners Group v Davis , 198 AD2d 63, 64 [1st Dept 1993] [holding for limitations purposes that a claim styled as one for tortious interference is subject to the one-year defamation statute of limitations "if, in fact, the claim seeks redress for injury to reputation"].) Here, the basis of plaintiff's tortious-interference claim is th

2025See Wiener v. Weintraub , 22 NY2d 330, 331 (1968) ("[S]tatements made by counsel and parties in the course of 'judicial proceedings' are privileged as long as such statements 'are material and pertinent to the questions involved . . . irrespective of the motive' with which they are made.").

2025See Wiener v. Weintraub , 22 NY2d 330, 331 (1968) ("[S]tatements made by counsel and parties in the course of 'judicial proceedings' are privileged as long as such statements 'are material and pertinent to the questions involved . . . irrespective of the motive' with which they are made.").

2025EPAC Technologies Ltd. v Interforum S.A. , 217 AD3d 623, 624 [1st Dept 2023] [alleged fraudulent tactics such as lying about Plaintiff's performance and fabricating complaints sufficient to allege tortious interference with a contract claim]).

2025EPAC Technologies Ltd. v Interforum S.A. , 217 AD3d 623, 624 [1st Dept 2023] [alleged fraudulent tactics such as lying about Plaintiff's performance and fabricating complaints sufficient to allege tortious interference with a contract claim]).

2025See, e.g., Corto v. Lefrak, 203 A.D.2d 94, 95 [1st Dept. 1994].

2025Sabharwal & Finkel, LLC v Sorrell, 117 AD3d 437, 438 [l51 Dept 2014] ["Dismissal of the defamation claim also requires dismissal of the tortious interference claim, since that is the basis for the allegation that defendant's conduct was 'otherwise unlawful'"] [citation omitted]). 5.

2025Accordingly, the unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed as duplicative of the tortious interference claim (<i>see Corsello</i>, 18 NY3d at 790 ).</p> <p>In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties' remaining arguments.</p> <p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.</p> <p>ENTERED: October 2, 2025</p> <br><br><div> </div>

2025Accordingly, the unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed as duplicative of the tortious interference claim ( see Corsello , 18 NY3d at 790).