Interweb, Inc. v. iPayment, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Interweb, Inc. v. iPayment, Inc.

12 A.D.3d 164, 783 N.Y.S.2d 468, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13050

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

DecidedNovember 4, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 164 (Interweb, Inc. v. iPayment, Inc.) 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

Interweb, Inc. v. iPayment, Inc., 12 A.D.3d 164, 783 N.Y.S.2d 468, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[165]*165Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 5, 2004, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The agreement between the parties solely concerned the limited service of processing plaintiffs customers’ credit card transactions and failed to contain a term certain for its duration. Thus, the agreement was terminable at will (Beslow v Novell, Inc., 242 AD2d 501 [1997]) and not subject to the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing (Lipsky v Guardian Life Ins. Co., 268 AD2d 310, 311 [2000], citing Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293 [1983]).

Plaintiffs cause of action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage was also properly dismissed. Assuming, arguendo, that defendant owed plaintiff a duty not to interfere with the relationship with nonparty Humboldt Bank, plaintiff failed to allege the requisite unlawful means or malicious intent to sustain such a claim (Thur v IPCO Corp., 173 AD2d 344, 345 [1991], lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1007 [1991]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[165]*165Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 5, 2004, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The agreement between the parties solely concerned the limited service of processing plaintiffs customers’ credit card transactions and failed to contain a term certain for its duration. Thus, the agreement was terminable at will (Beslow v Novell, Inc., 242 AD2d 501 [1997]) and not subject to the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing (Lipsky v Guardian Life Ins. Co., 268 AD2d 310, 311 [2000], citing Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293 [1983]).

Plaintiffs cause of action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage was also properly dismissed. Assuming, arguendo, that defendant owed plaintiff a duty not to interfere with the relationship with nonparty Humboldt Bank, plaintiff failed to allege the requisite unlawful means or malicious intent to sustain such a claim (Thur v IPCO Corp., 173 AD2d 344, 345 [1991], lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1007 [1991]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 164, 783 N.Y.S.2d 468, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interweb-inc-v-ipayment-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack