Kaulhausen v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaulhausen v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance

275 A.D.2d 753

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

DecidedApril 12, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 753 (Kaulhausen v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance) 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

Kaulhausen v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance, 275 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After giving the allegations of the complaint the benefit of every reasonable inference and intendment, we find that no cause of action has been pleaded against any of the defendants.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful interference with a prospective contract, it must be shown that the contract would have materialized but for the wrongful interference. (Union Car Adv. Co. v. Collier, 263 N. Y. 386; Portman v. Burack, 265 App. Div. 959, affd. 290 N. Y. 686; Newberry & Co. v. Warnecke & Co., 267 App. Div. 418, affd. 293 N. Y. 698.) The complaint herein fails to meet that requirement. While it may reasonably be inferred from the allegations of the eleventh and twelfth paragraphs of the complaint that plaintiff would have obtained employment with the defendant Ben Hyde, except for the wrongful conduct of the other defendants, the effectiveness of those allegations is completely nullified by the twentieth paragraph. In that portion of the complaint it is alleged that the statements and representations made by Ben Hyde, which are set forth in the eleventh and twelfth paragraphs, were false and “ that in truth and in fact the defendant Ben Hyde had no intention of ever employing plaintiff ”. That being so, the defendant could not possibly have interfered with plaintiff’s prospective employment by Hyde.

The order should therefore be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the motion to dismiss the complaint granted, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of the order to be entered herein.

Peck, P. J., G-lennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion granted, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of the order, with notice of entry thereof, on payment of said costs.

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

Per Curiam.

After giving the allegations of the complaint the benefit of every reasonable inference and intendment, we find that no cause of action has been pleaded against any of the defendants.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful interference with a prospective contract, it must be shown that the contract would have materialized but for the wrongful interference. (Union Car Adv. Co. v. Collier, 263 N. Y. 386; Portman v. Burack, 265 App. Div. 959, affd. 290 N. Y. 686; Newberry & Co. v. Warnecke & Co., 267 App. Div. 418, affd. 293 N. Y. 698.) The complaint herein fails to meet that requirement. While it may reasonably be inferred from the allegations of the eleventh and twelfth paragraphs of the complaint that plaintiff would have obtained employment with the defendant Ben Hyde, except for the wrongful conduct of the other defendants, the effectiveness of those allegations is completely nullified by the twentieth paragraph. In that portion of the complaint it is alleged that the statements and representations made by Ben Hyde, which are set forth in the eleventh and twelfth paragraphs, were false and “ that in truth and in fact the defendant Ben Hyde had no intention of ever employing plaintiff ”. That being so, the defendant could not possibly have interfered with plaintiff’s prospective employment by Hyde.

The order should therefore be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the motion to dismiss the complaint granted, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of the order to be entered herein.

Peck, P. J., G-lennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion granted, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of the order, with notice of entry thereof, on payment of said costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaulhausen-v-penn-mutual-life-insurance-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack