Jorge v. Noe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jorge v. Noe

48 A.D.3d 423, 849 N.Y.S.2d 803

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 423 (Jorge v. Noe) 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

Jorge v. Noe, 48 A.D.3d 423, 849 N.Y.S.2d 803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated June 27, 2006, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Ivan Noe and Noah Trans Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Ivan Noe and Noah Trans Corp. (hereinafter the Noe defendants) which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. To the extent that the complaint asserted a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, the Noe defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not use any wrongful means or act solely for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff (see Alexander & Alexander of N.Y. v Fritzen, 68 NY2d 968 [1986]; South Fourth St. Props. v Muschel, 1 AD3d 347 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Santucci, J.P., Lifson, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated June 27, 2006, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Ivan Noe and Noah Trans Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Ivan Noe and Noah Trans Corp. (hereinafter the Noe defendants) which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. To the extent that the complaint asserted a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, the Noe defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not use any wrongful means or act solely for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff (see Alexander & Alexander of N.Y. v Fritzen, 68 NY2d 968 [1986]; South Fourth St. Props. v Muschel, 1 AD3d 347 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Santucci, J.P., Lifson, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 423, 849 N.Y.S.2d 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jorge-v-noe-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack