Houlihan-Parnes v. Citibank, N. A.

New York Court of Appeals

Houlihan-Parnes v. Citibank, N. A.

403 N.E.2d 172, 49 N.Y.2d 761, 426 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2131

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 12, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 403 N.E.2d 172 (Houlihan-Parnes v. Citibank, N. A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Houlihan-Parnes v. Citibank, N. A., 403 N.E.2d 172, 49 N.Y.2d 761, 426 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2131 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

It being undisputed that no agency or contractual relationship existed between the parties, a cause of action for conspiracy to interfere with that relationship does not lie (Brackett v Griswold, 112 NY 454, 466-467). Hence, defendants were properly granted summary judgment.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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