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
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
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).
403 N.E.2d 172 (Houlihan-Parnes v. Citibank, N. A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Brown & Son Realty, Inc. v. Greenberg
195 A.D.2d 583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)