Chaitman v. Moezinia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chaitman v. Moezinia

132 A.D.3d 555, 17 N.Y.S.3d 864

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2015

Docket15930 653037/12

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 555 (Chaitman v. Moezinia) 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

Chaitman v. Moezinia, 132 A.D.3d 555, 17 N.Y.S.3d 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 17, 2014, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The proposed amendments are palpably insufficient and devoid of merit (see MBIA Ins. Corp. v Grey stone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010]). The allegations do not show that defendants “acted solely out of malice” or that they “used improper or illegal means” so as to support the proposed claim for tortious interference with business relations (Amaranth LLC v J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 71 AD3d 40, 47 [1st Dept *556 2009], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 14 NY3d 736 [2010]). To the extent plaintiffs contend that they may recover damages for the “non-nominative tort for intentional and unprivileged infliction of temporal harm,” even assuming, without deciding, that we recognize such a claim, the conduct alleged does not amount to intentional infliction of harm (see Board of Educ. of Farmingdale Union Free School Dist. v Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., Local 1889, AFT AFL-CIO, 38 NY2d 397, 406 [1975]; Morrison v National Broadcasting Co., 24 AD2d 284, 291 [1st Dept 1965]). As the proposed amended complaint failed to adequately state a tort claim against the individual or corporate defendants, the proposed claim for punitive damages is nonviable (see Prote Contr. Co. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 276 AD2d 309, 310 [1st Dept 2000]; see also Nutri Cheese & Foods v Slavin & Sons, 184 AD2d 330, 330 [1st Dept 1992]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 17, 2014, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The proposed amendments are palpably insufficient and devoid of merit (see MBIA Ins. Corp. v Grey stone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010]). The allegations do not show that defendants “acted solely out of malice” or that they “used improper or illegal means” so as to support the proposed claim for tortious interference with business relations (Amaranth LLC v J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 71 AD3d 40, 47 [1st Dept *556 2009], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 14 NY3d 736 [2010]). To the extent plaintiffs contend that they may recover damages for the “non-nominative tort for intentional and unprivileged infliction of temporal harm,” even assuming, without deciding, that we recognize such a claim, the conduct alleged does not amount to intentional infliction of harm (see Board of Educ. of Farmingdale Union Free School Dist. v Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., Local 1889, AFT AFL-CIO, 38 NY2d 397, 406 [1975]; Morrison v National Broadcasting Co., 24 AD2d 284, 291 [1st Dept 1965]). As the proposed amended complaint failed to adequately state a tort claim against the individual or corporate defendants, the proposed claim for punitive damages is nonviable (see Prote Contr. Co. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 276 AD2d 309, 310 [1st Dept 2000]; see also Nutri Cheese & Foods v Slavin & Sons, 184 AD2d 330, 330 [1st Dept 1992]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 555, 17 N.Y.S.3d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaitman-v-moezinia-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack