Click Model Management, Inc. v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Click Model Management, Inc. v. Williams

167 A.D.2d 279, 561 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13919

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 279 (Click Model Management, Inc. v. Williams) 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

Click Model Management, Inc. v. Williams, 167 A.D.2d 279, 561 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered April 23, 1990, which, inter alia, [280]*280granted defendant Turlington’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Click Model Management, Inc. represented Rachel Williams, an internationally known model, pursuant to a written management agreement. In 1987, Williams left Click and joined Ford Models, Inc., a competing agency. Click alleges that Christy Turlington, also an internationally known model, tortiously interfered with Click’s contract with Williams.

In order to establish a cause of action for tortious interference with contractual relations, Click was required to allege and prove: (1) the existence of a valid contract between Click and Williams; (2) Turlington’s knowledge of that contract; (3) Turlington’s intentional procuring of the breach of that contract; and (4) damages (Israel v Wood Dolson Co., 1 NY2d 116, 120). We find insufficient evidence in the record to raise a factual question as to whether Turlington intentionally procured the breach of contract, assuming for purposes of this appeal that the contract between Click and Williams was in fact breached. On one occasion when Williams and Turlington were on a fashion photography shoot in Morocco, Williams complained to Turlington about her dissatisfaction with Click’s services, the commissions she paid to Click, and the nature of her assignments, and Turlington told Williams "You ought to come over to Ford.” On a later occasion, at a Calvin Klein show in New York, Turlington telephoned Abel Rapp, a Ford employee, told him that Williams wanted to make an appointment to speak to someone at Ford, and then gave the phone to Williams. Activities of this type clearly do not evince an intent on defendant’s part to procure a breach of contract. The most that can be said is that defendant intended to accommodate her friend, who was already clearly dissatisfied with Click’s services. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered April 23, 1990, which, inter alia, [280]*280granted defendant Turlington’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Click Model Management, Inc. represented Rachel Williams, an internationally known model, pursuant to a written management agreement. In 1987, Williams left Click and joined Ford Models, Inc., a competing agency. Click alleges that Christy Turlington, also an internationally known model, tortiously interfered with Click’s contract with Williams.

In order to establish a cause of action for tortious interference with contractual relations, Click was required to allege and prove: (1) the existence of a valid contract between Click and Williams; (2) Turlington’s knowledge of that contract; (3) Turlington’s intentional procuring of the breach of that contract; and (4) damages (Israel v Wood Dolson Co., 1 NY2d 116, 120). We find insufficient evidence in the record to raise a factual question as to whether Turlington intentionally procured the breach of contract, assuming for purposes of this appeal that the contract between Click and Williams was in fact breached. On one occasion when Williams and Turlington were on a fashion photography shoot in Morocco, Williams complained to Turlington about her dissatisfaction with Click’s services, the commissions she paid to Click, and the nature of her assignments, and Turlington told Williams "You ought to come over to Ford.” On a later occasion, at a Calvin Klein show in New York, Turlington telephoned Abel Rapp, a Ford employee, told him that Williams wanted to make an appointment to speak to someone at Ford, and then gave the phone to Williams. Activities of this type clearly do not evince an intent on defendant’s part to procure a breach of contract. The most that can be said is that defendant intended to accommodate her friend, who was already clearly dissatisfied with Click’s services. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 279, 561 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/click-model-management-inc-v-williams-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack