Lawrence-Picaso, Inc. v. Cosme

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawrence-Picaso, Inc. v. Cosme

228 A.D.2d 392, 644 N.Y.2d 622, 644 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7455

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

DecidedJune 27, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 392 (Lawrence-Picaso, Inc. v. Cosme) 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

Lawrence-Picaso, Inc. v. Cosme, 228 A.D.2d 392, 644 N.Y.2d 622, 644 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The complaint as against defendant Maxwell-Kates, which sounds in tortious interference with plaintiff’s contractual relationships to manage certain apartment buildings, was properly dismissed where plaintiff’s agreement with the relevant properties were terminable at will and plaintiff failed to adduce any proof of wrongful or improper conduct on defendant-respondent’s part (see, NBT Bancorp v Fleet/ Norstar Fin. Group, 87 NY2d 614; Thur v IPCO Corp., 173 AD2d 344, 345, lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1007). While plaintiff attempts to rely on principles of tortious "impairment” of performance of an unbreached contract, such a claim also requires proof of wrongful or improper conduct on the part of defendant, wholly lacking here (cf., S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S.H. Corp., 108 AD2d 351). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

The complaint as against defendant Maxwell-Kates, which sounds in tortious interference with plaintiff’s contractual relationships to manage certain apartment buildings, was properly dismissed where plaintiff’s agreement with the relevant properties were terminable at will and plaintiff failed to adduce any proof of wrongful or improper conduct on defendant-respondent’s part (see, NBT Bancorp v Fleet/ Norstar Fin. Group, 87 NY2d 614; Thur v IPCO Corp., 173 AD2d 344, 345, lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1007). While plaintiff attempts to rely on principles of tortious "impairment” of performance of an unbreached contract, such a claim also requires proof of wrongful or improper conduct on the part of defendant, wholly lacking here (cf., S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S.H. Corp., 108 AD2d 351). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 392, 644 N.Y.2d 622, 644 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-picaso-inc-v-cosme-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack