AFA Protective Systems, Inc. v. D & W Central Station Alarm Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

AFA Protective Systems, Inc. v. D & W Central Station Alarm Co.

200 A.D.2d 496, 606 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 464

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 20, 1994·Published

Opinion

—The parties having submitted a controversy to this Court upon an agreed statement of facts, pursuant to CPLR 3222 (b) dated September 23, 1993, to determine whether defendant intentionally caused plaintiff AFA Protective Systems, Inc.’s [497] contract with Madison Realty, Inc. to be breached, the complaint is dismissed and judgment unanimously directed for defendant, with costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant, with costs.

While plaintiff had a valid contract with Madison Avenue Realty ("Madison”) when defendant gave Madison a price quote to install a sprinkler alarm system, the record does not support a finding of intentional interference with contract (see, Giannelli v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 160 AD2d 227, 232-233). Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence to establish that defendant intentionally caused Madison to breach its contract, particularly where defendant itself advised Madison that Madison remained obliged to plaintiff for the balance of the term of that agreement. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—The parties having submitted a controversy to this Court upon an agreed statement of facts, pursuant to CPLR 3222 (b) dated September 23, 1993, to determine whether defendant intentionally caused plaintiff AFA Protective Systems, Inc.’s [497] contract with Madison Realty, Inc. to be breached, the complaint is dismissed and judgment unanimously directed for defendant, with costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant, with costs.

While plaintiff had a valid contract with Madison Avenue Realty ("Madison”) when defendant gave Madison a price quote to install a sprinkler alarm system, the record does not support a finding of intentional interference with contract (see, Giannelli v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 160 AD2d 227, 232-233). Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence to establish that defendant intentionally caused Madison to breach its contract, particularly where defendant itself advised Madison that Madison remained obliged to plaintiff for the balance of the term of that agreement. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

AFA Protective Systems, Inc. v. D & W Central Station Alarm Co., 200 A.D.2d 496, 606 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

200 A.D.2d 496 (AFA Protective Systems, Inc. v. D & W Central Station Alarm Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related