Bon Temps Agency Ltd. v. Mittman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bon Temps Agency Ltd. v. Mittman

260 A.D.2d 191, 688 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3614

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

DecidedApril 8, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 191 (Bon Temps Agency Ltd. v. Mittman) 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

Bon Temps Agency Ltd. v. Mittman, 260 A.D.2d 191, 688 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered June 16, 1998, which, in an action by an employment placement agency against a law firm partner for tortious interference with business relations and prima facie tort, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming in plaintiffs favor that defendant, not his firm’s office manager, was the person at the firm who decided to terminate the firm’s relationship with plaintiff, and that defendant made this decision not because plaintiff increased its rates but because plaintiff refused defendant’s demand that it procure for him hockey tickets that would have cost it $8,000, the action must be dismissed in the absence of evidence tending to show that, in demanding the hockey tickets and terminating relations with plaintiff, defendant was acting other than as an agent of his firm, or with the sole intent of harming plaintiff (see, Nu-Life Constr. Corp. v Board of Educ., 204 AD2d 106, Iv dismissed 84 NY2d 850). Further, as the IAS Court [192]*192found, defendant’s demand or request for the tickets was made “to promote the Firms’s business objectives”. We have reviewed plaintiffs other claims and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered June 16, 1998, which, in an action by an employment placement agency against a law firm partner for tortious interference with business relations and prima facie tort, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming in plaintiffs favor that defendant, not his firm’s office manager, was the person at the firm who decided to terminate the firm’s relationship with plaintiff, and that defendant made this decision not because plaintiff increased its rates but because plaintiff refused defendant’s demand that it procure for him hockey tickets that would have cost it $8,000, the action must be dismissed in the absence of evidence tending to show that, in demanding the hockey tickets and terminating relations with plaintiff, defendant was acting other than as an agent of his firm, or with the sole intent of harming plaintiff (see, Nu-Life Constr. Corp. v Board of Educ., 204 AD2d 106, Iv dismissed 84 NY2d 850). Further, as the IAS Court [192]*192found, defendant’s demand or request for the tickets was made “to promote the Firms’s business objectives”. We have reviewed plaintiffs other claims and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 191, 688 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bon-temps-agency-ltd-v-mittman-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack