Baron Associates, P.C. v. Rskco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baron Associates, P.C. v. Rskco

16 A.D.3d 362, 790 N.Y.S.2d 407, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2325

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 7, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 362 (Baron Associates, P.C. v. Rskco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baron Associates, P.C. v. Rskco, 16 A.D.3d 362, 790 N.Y.S.2d 407, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2325 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated June 18, 2003, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Global Investigative Concepts, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and granted that branch of the motion of the defendants RSKCO, Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Continental Casualty Insurance Company, and Bunin & DiGiulio which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendant Global Investigative Concepts, Inc. (hereinafter Global), established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that Global engaged in the wrongful conduct required for a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract based on a client’s termination of a terminable-at-will retainer agreement (see Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 NY2d 183 [1980]; Waste Servs. v Jamaica Ash & Rubbish Removal Co., 262 AD2d 401 [1999]; Koeppel v Schroder, 122 AD2d 780 [1986]).

In addition, the plaintiff did not assert that the defendants RSKCO, Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Continental Casualty Insurance Company, and Bunin & DiGiulio employed [363]*363wrongful means to induce a client’s termination of his retainer agreement with it. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract against those defendants. Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated June 18, 2003, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Global Investigative Concepts, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and granted that branch of the motion of the defendants RSKCO, Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Continental Casualty Insurance Company, and Bunin & DiGiulio which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendant Global Investigative Concepts, Inc. (hereinafter Global), established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that Global engaged in the wrongful conduct required for a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract based on a client’s termination of a terminable-at-will retainer agreement (see Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 NY2d 183 [1980]; Waste Servs. v Jamaica Ash & Rubbish Removal Co., 262 AD2d 401 [1999]; Koeppel v Schroder, 122 AD2d 780 [1986]).

In addition, the plaintiff did not assert that the defendants RSKCO, Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Continental Casualty Insurance Company, and Bunin & DiGiulio employed [363]*363wrongful means to induce a client’s termination of his retainer agreement with it. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract against those defendants. Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 362, 790 N.Y.S.2d 407, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baron-associates-pc-v-rskco-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack