tortious interference with contract claim in New York

2025In order to prevail on a tortious interference with contract claim, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a valid contract between it and a third party, the defendant's intentional and unjustified procurement of the third party's breach of the contract, the actual breach of the contract, and resulting damages ( see Jim Ball Chrysler LLC v Marong Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 19 AD3d 1094, 1095 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 709 [2005]; see also Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney , 88 NY2d 413, 424-425 [1996]).

2024"A tortious interference with contract claim should be dismissed where the plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege that the contract would not have been breached but for the defendant's conduct" ( 111 West 57th Investment LLC v 111 W57 Mezz Investment LLC , 220 AD3d 435 , 436 [1st Dept 2023]; see also Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney Inc. , 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]) Plaintiff does not allege that but for the defendants' actions, plaintiff's publisher would not have breached its contract with plaintiff.

2026The First Department cases upon which Eagle Equity relies stand for the ordinary proposition that conclusory allegations are insufficient (Dashdevs LLC v Capital Markets Placement, Inc., 210 AD3d 525 , 526 [1st Dept 2022] [“[T]he allegations that plaintiff caused defendant's clients to terminate their relationship with defendant by ‘defam[ing]’ defendant and ‘woo[ing]’ the clients were vague, conclusory, and based on speculation”]; Burrowes v Combs, 25 AD3d 370, 373 [1st Dept 2006] [“[T]o avoid dismissal of a tortious interference with contract claim a plaintiff must support his claim with mor

2025“Although on a motion to dismiss the allegations in a complaint should be construed liberally, to avoid dismissal of a tortious interference with contract claim a plaintiff must support his claim with more than mere speculation.” Burrowes, 808 N.Y.S.2d at 53 . “[A]ll ‘but for’ causes bear some connection to the outcome even if all do not lead to legal liability.” Burlington Ins.

2023The tortious interference with contract claim against attorney defendant fails due to the lack of a predicate breach of contract ( Oddo Asset Mgt. v Barclays Bank PLC , 19 NY3d 584, 594-595 [2012]).

2023The tortious interference with contract claim against attorney defendant fails due to the lack of a predicate breach of contract ( Oddo Asset Mgt. v Barclays Bank PLC , 19 NY3d 584, 594-595 [2012]).

2023The cause of action for tortious interference with prospective business relations should have been dismissed because defendants' conduct, as alleged, did not rise to the level of culpable conduct sufficient to support the claim ( see Carvel Corp. v Noonan , 3 NY3d 182, 189-192 [2004]).

2012(Carvel Corp. v Noonan, 3 NY3d 182, 190 [2004]; Shared Communications Servs. of ESR, Inc. v Goldman Sachs & Co., 23 AD3d 162, 163 [1st Dept 2005]; Reid v Ernst & Young Global Ltd., 13 Misc 3d 1242[A] , 2006 NY Slip Op 52298[U] , *5 [Sup Ct, NY County, Nov. 15, 2006].) The element of malice or improper means for the tortious interference with contract claim is implicated here only because of UMG’s assertion of the economic interest defense.

2015Because the court correctly dismissed the breach of contract cause of action against WWP, the tortious interference with contract claim against ARC is not viable (see White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v Cintas Corp., 8 NY3d 422, 426 [2007] [“In a contract interference case [,]... the plaintiff must show the existence of its valid contract with a third party”]).

2014To establish a claim of tortious interference with contract, “the plaintiff must show the existence of its valid contract with a third party, defendant’s knowledge of that contract, defendant’s intentional and improper procuring of a breach, and damages” (White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v Cintas Corp., 8 NY3d 422, 426 [2007]).

2025"Although on a motion to dismiss the allegations in a complaint should be construed liberally, to avoid dismissal of a tortious interference with contract claim[,] a plaintiff must support his [or her] claim with more than mere speculation" ( Influx Capital, LLC v Pershin , 186 AD3d at 1624 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ferrandino & Son, Inc. v Wheaton Bldrs., Inc., LLC , 82 AD3d 1035, 1036 ).

2021"Although on a motion to dismiss the allegations in a complaint should be construed liberally, to avoid dismissal of a tortious interference with contract claim a plaintiff must support his [or her] claim with more than mere speculation" ( Ferrandino & Son, Inc. v Wheaton Bldrs., Inc., LLC , 82 AD3d 1035, 1036 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2019The complaint's conclusory allegations are insufficient to trigger the exception to this rule ( see generally Murtha v Yonkers Child Care Assn. , 45 NY2d 913, 915 [1978]; Hoag v Chancellor, Inc. , 246 AD2d 224, 228-230 [1st Dept 1998]).

1998(Murtha v Yonkers Child Care Assn., 45 NY2d 913, 915 [1978]; Bonanni v Straight Arrow Publs., 133 AD2d 585, 586 [1st Dept 1987].) Culverhouse has simply failed to sufficiently allege a tortious interference with contract claim.

2025Co. v. NYC Transit Auth., 79 N.E.3d 477, 482 (N.Y. 2017).

2025Co. v. NYC Transit Auth. , 79 N.E.3d 477, 482 (NY 2017).

2024Shared Communications Servs. of ESR, Inc. v Goldman Sachs & Co. , 23 AD3d 162, 163 [1st Dept 2005]).

2012(Carvel Corp. v Noonan, 3 NY3d 182, 190 [2004]; Shared Communications Servs. of ESR, Inc. v Goldman Sachs & Co., 23 AD3d 162, 163 [1st Dept 2005]; Reid v Ernst & Young Global Ltd., 13 Misc 3d 1242[A] , 2006 NY Slip Op 52298[U] , *5 [Sup Ct, NY County, Nov. 15, 2006].) The element of malice or improper means for the tortious interference with contract claim is implicated here only because of UMG’s assertion of the economic interest defense.

2021Corp. , 50 NY2d 183, 190-192 [1980]).

2021Corp. , 50 NY2d 183, 190-192 [1980]).

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]).

2021The pleadings do not adequately allege that Arora acted with malice or that his actions were calculated to impair Provident's business for his personal gain rather than for the interests of his corporation ( see Johnson v Cestone , 162 AD3d 526 , 527 [1st Dept 2018]; Joan Hansen & Co. v Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corp. , 296 AD2d 103, 110 [1st Dept 2002]).

2021The pleadings do not adequately allege that Arora acted with malice or that his actions were calculated to impair Provident's business for his personal gain rather than for the interests of his corporation ( see Johnson v Cestone , 162 AD3d 526 , 527 [1st Dept 2018]; Joan Hansen & Co. v Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corp. , 296 AD2d 103, 110 [1st Dept 2002]).

2020Meadow Union Free School Dist. , 80 AD2d 572, 573 [2d Dept 1981], affd 55 NY2d 912 [1982]).

2020Meadow Union Free School Dist. , 80 AD2d 572, 573 [2d Dept 1981], affd 55 NY2d 912 [1982]).

2020The IAS court properly found that the collective bargaining agreement could not serve as the basis for a tortious interference with contract claim ( Britt v City of N.Y. , 151 AD3d 606, 607 [1st Dept 2017]; see also Berlyn v Board of Educ. of E.

2020The IAS court properly found that the collective bargaining agreement could not serve as the basis for a tortious interference with contract claim ( Britt v City of N.Y. , 151 AD3d 606, 607 [1st Dept 2017]; see also Berlyn v Board of Educ. of E.

2014The court properly dismissed the tortious interference with contract claim because the evidence plainly shows no contracts exist between plaintiffs (Merisel) and the clients whom plaintiffs claim the Splash defendants improperly solicited and persuaded to shift their business away from plaintiffs to Splash (Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]; Design Strategy Corp. v Citibank, 252 AD2d 366, 366 [1st Dept 1998]).

2014The court properly dismissed the tortious interference with contract claim because the evidence plainly shows no contracts exist between plaintiffs (Merisel) and the clients whom plaintiffs claim the Splash defendants improperly solicited and persuaded to shift their business away from plaintiffs to Splash (Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]; Design Strategy Corp. v Citibank, 252 AD2d 366, 366 [1st Dept 1998]).

2012Contrary to defendants’ contention, the tortious interference with contract claim states a cause of action by alleging tortious interference with Fletcher’s contract to purchase apartment 50 from Ruth Proskauer Smith’s estate (Kronos, Inc. v AVX Corp., 81 NY2d 90, 94 [1993]). 3 Thus, we decline to dismiss the eleventh cause of action as against the Dakota.

2012Contrary to defendants’ contention, the tortious interference with contract claim states a cause of action by alleging tortious interference with Fletcher’s contract to purchase apartment 50 from Ruth Proskauer Smith’s estate (Kronos, Inc. v AVX Corp., 81 NY2d 90, 94 [1993]). 3 Thus, we decline to dismiss the eleventh cause of action as against the Dakota.

2012However, it should be dismissed as against Barnes, because the complaint does not allege that Barnes committed independent tortious conduct outside of his role as a board member (see American-European Art Assoc. v Trend Galleries, 227 AD2d 170, 171-172 [1996]).

2012However, it should be dismissed as against Barnes, because the complaint does not allege that Barnes committed independent tortious conduct outside of his role as a board member (see American-European Art Assoc. v Trend Galleries, 227 AD2d 170, 171-172 [1996]).

2025"Although on a motion to dismiss the allegations in a complaint should be construed liberally, to avoid dismissal of a tortious interference with contract claim[,] a plaintiff must support his [or her] claim with more than mere speculation" ( Influx Capital, LLC v Pershin , 186 AD3d at 1624 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ferrandino & Son, Inc. v Wheaton Bldrs., Inc., LLC , 82 AD3d 1035, 1036 ).

2025In order to prevail on a tortious interference with contract claim, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a valid contract between it and a third party, the defendant's intentional and unjustified procurement of the third party's breach of the contract, the actual breach of the contract, and resulting damages ( see Jim Ball Chrysler LLC v Marong Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 19 AD3d 1094, 1095 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 709 [2005]; see also Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney , 88 NY2d 413, 424-425 [1996]).

2024"Although on a motion to dismiss the allegations in a complaint should be construed liberally, to avoid dismissal of a tortious interference with contract claim a plaintiff must support his [or her] claim with more than mere speculation" ( Asamblea De Iglesias Christianas, Inc. v DeVito , 210 AD3d at 844 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2024"A cause of action alleging tortious interference with contractual relations must be dismissed where the allegations in support of the cause of action are devoid of a factual basis and are vague and conclusory" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2022A cause of action alleging tortious interference with contractual relations must be dismissed where the allegations in support of the cause of action are devoid of a factual basis and are vague and conclusory" ( Palmieri v Perry, Van Etten, Rozanski & Primavera, LLP , 200 AD3d 785, 787-788 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

2021A cause of action alleging tortious interference with contractual relations must be dismissed where the allegations in support of the cause of action "are devoid of a factual basis and are vague and conclusory" ( Schuckman Realty v Marine Midland Bank , 244 AD2d 400, 401 ; see Black Car & Livery Ins., Inc. v H & W Brokerage, Inc. , 28 AD3d 595, 595 ).

2019The tortious interference with contract claim fails because Edwards and White were not "stranger[s]" to these agreements ( see Ashby v ALM Media, LLC , 110 AD3d 459 , 459 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 860 [2014]; Koret, Inc. v Christian Dior, S.A. , 161 AD2d 156, 157 [1st Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 714 [1990]).

2019The complaint's conclusory allegations are insufficient to trigger the exception to this rule ( see generally Murtha v Yonkers Child Care Assn. , 45 NY2d 913, 915 [1978]; Hoag v Chancellor, Inc. , 246 AD2d 224, 228-230 [1st Dept 1998]).