Catlin v. Nick & Duke, LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 03075

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: June 6, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 101126/22 Appeal No. 2431 Case No. 2024-00669
• Status: Published

Opinion

Catlin v Nick & Duke, LLC (2024 NY Slip Op 03075)

Catlin v Nick & Duke, LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 03075

Decided on June 06, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: June 06, 2024
Before: Kern, J.P., Moulton, Friedman, González, Pitt-Burke, JJ.

Index No. 101126/22 Appeal No. 2431 Case No. 2024-00669

[*1]Robin Catlin, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Nick & Duke, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Bradley S. Silverbush of counsel), for appellant.

Robin Catlin, respondent pro se.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered November 20, 2023, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The complaint failed to state a cause of action for tortious interference with contract because it did not assert that defendant intentionally interfered with plaintiff's relocation contract with Audthan LLC(see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney , 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]). The complaint alleged that defendant's motive in preventing Audthan from commencing the development project and complying with the relocation contract with plaintiff was economic in that the market had changed and defendant's lease with Audthan was no longer sufficiently profitable for defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff does not have a cause of action, because defendant's interference with the contract between plaintiff and Audthan was merely negligent or incidental to some other lawful purpose (see Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co. , 46 NY2d 276, 281 [1978]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: June 6, 2024