Ramsey v. H.M.S. Inc.

198 A.D.2d 868, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1022
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 19, 1993·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint because the proposed cause of action is without merit (see, Wieder v Skala, 168 AD2d 355). Supreme Court also properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint because plaintiff failed to state a legally sufficient cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, or wrongful discharge (see, Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293). Moreover, the submissions on the motion established that the individual defendants had the authority to contract with plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for wrongful interference with contractual rights against those defendants (see, Mansour v Abrams, 144 AD2d 905). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J. — Wrongful Discharge.) Present — Denman, P. J., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

Ramsey v. H.M.S. Inc., 198 A.D.2d 868, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

198 A.D.2d 868 (Ramsey v. H.M.S. Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Owitz v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr.
2004 NY Slip Op 50046(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2004)
Pipas v. Syracuse Home Ass'n
226 A.D.2d 1097 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)