Moorman v. Huntington Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moorman v. Huntington Hospital

271 A.D.2d 585, 707 N.Y.S.2d 336, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4283

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

DecidedApril 17, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 585 (Moorman v. Huntington Hospital) 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

Moorman v. Huntington Hospital, 271 A.D.2d 585, 707 N.Y.S.2d 336, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with business relationships, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated January 13, 1999, as granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and denied his cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.

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

The plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action different from those previously asserted in a prior action between the parties (see, Moorman v Huntington Hosp., 254 AD2d 465). The plaintiff’s allegations with respect to a new cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage are insufficient to state a cause of action (see, Mandelblatt v Devon Stores, 132 AD2d 162). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 business relationships, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated January 13, 1999, as granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and denied his cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.

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

The plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action different from those previously asserted in a prior action between the parties (see, Moorman v Huntington Hosp., 254 AD2d 465). The plaintiff’s allegations with respect to a new cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage are insufficient to state a cause of action (see, Mandelblatt v Devon Stores, 132 AD2d 162). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 585, 707 N.Y.S.2d 336, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moorman-v-huntington-hospital-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack