Murataj v. Dream Dragon Productions, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murataj v. Dream Dragon Productions, Inc.

72 A.D.3d 527, 898 N.Y.S.2d 453

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

DecidedApril 20, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 527 (Murataj v. Dream Dragon Productions, 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

Murataj v. Dream Dragon Productions, Inc., 72 A.D.3d 527, 898 N.Y.S.2d 453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered January 28, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon renewal, granted defendant Kalatsky’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for tortious interference with contract as against him, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since, as the record demonstrates, there was no breach of the contract between plaintiff and his crew, plaintiffs claim of tortious interference with contract fails as a matter of law (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]; Marks v Smith, 65 AD3d 911, 916 [2009]).

[528]*528We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered January 28, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon renewal, granted defendant Kalatsky’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for tortious interference with contract as against him, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since, as the record demonstrates, there was no breach of the contract between plaintiff and his crew, plaintiffs claim of tortious interference with contract fails as a matter of law (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]; Marks v Smith, 65 AD3d 911, 916 [2009]).

[528]*528We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 527, 898 N.Y.S.2d 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murataj-v-dream-dragon-productions-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack