Pursuit Investment Management LLC v. Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pursuit Investment Management LLC v. Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P.

127 A.D.3d 580, 8 N.Y.S.3d 283

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 21, 2015·No. 14881·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered on or about September 9, 2014, which denied the motion of defendant Harris & Houghteling LLP (Harris) to dismiss the complaint as against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the mo *581 tion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against Harris.

Dismissal of the complaint as against Harris is warranted since plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim for tortious interference with contract, as plaintiffs did not allege that Harris’s conduct was the “but for” causation of their purported damages (see Wilmington Trust Co. v Burger King Corp., 34 AD3d 401, 402-403 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 806 [2007]; Cantor Fitzgerald Assoc. v Tradition N. Am., 299 AD2d 204 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 508 [2003]).

Dismissal of the action as against Harris, a law firm, is also warranted because it is immune from liability “under the shield afforded attorneys in advising their clients, even when such advice is erroneous, in the absence of fraud, collusion, malice or bad faith” (Purvi Enters., LLC v City of New York, 62 AD3d 508, 509-510 [1st Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). To the extent plaintiffs allege fraud, collusion, malice and bad faith on the part of Harris, these allegations are conclusory (see Abrams v Pecile, 84 AD3d 618, 619 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered on or about September 9, 2014, which denied the motion of defendant Harris & Houghteling LLP (Harris) to dismiss the complaint as against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the mo *581 tion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against Harris.

Dismissal of the complaint as against Harris is warranted since plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim for tortious interference with contract, as plaintiffs did not allege that Harris’s conduct was the “but for” causation of their purported damages (see Wilmington Trust Co. v Burger King Corp., 34 AD3d 401, 402-403 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 806 [2007]; Cantor Fitzgerald Assoc. v Tradition N. Am., 299 AD2d 204 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 508 [2003]).

Dismissal of the action as against Harris, a law firm, is also warranted because it is immune from liability “under the shield afforded attorneys in advising their clients, even when such advice is erroneous, in the absence of fraud, collusion, malice or bad faith” (Purvi Enters., LLC v City of New York, 62 AD3d 508, 509-510 [1st Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). To the extent plaintiffs allege fraud, collusion, malice and bad faith on the part of Harris, these allegations are conclusory (see Abrams v Pecile, 84 AD3d 618, 619 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Pursuit Investment Management LLC v. Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P., 127 A.D.3d 580, 8 N.Y.S.3d 283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

127 A.D.3d 580 (Pursuit Investment Management LLC v. Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related