Rapp Boxx, Inc. v. MTV, Inc.

226 A.D.2d 324, 642 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4634
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 30, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 324 (Rapp Boxx, Inc. v. MTV, 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
Rapp Boxx, Inc. v. MTV, Inc., 226 A.D.2d 324, 642 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about February 22, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant MTV, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly granted summary judgment in favor [325]*325of MTV on plaintiffs cause of action for tortious interference with the alleged contract between plaintiff and defendant Lover to perform as host of a series of rap music shows which plaintiff was to produce, since plaintiff failed to come forward with proof in evidentiary form establishing that MTV had " 'intentionally induced’ ” a breach of that purported contract (Saja Music Co. v Sony Music Entertainment, 212 AD2d 370).

Plaintiff also failed to establish its cause of action for tortious interference with contractual relations as against MTV by its failure to establish that MTV had intentionally and through improper means induced a breach of the contract for the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff (Goldstein Prods. v Fish, 198 AD2d 137, 138).

Dismissal of the complaint as against MTV is particularly appropriate, because the evidence, including corroboration by defendant Lover, shows that MTV never solicited him for a role in its competing rap music show, that he voluntarily repudiated his contract with plaintiff in September 1988, and that he independently solicited and initiated discussions with MTV for a position as a host of MTV’s show months after the alleged breach (Saja Music Co. v Sony Music Entertainment, supra).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Amalfi, Inc. v. 428 Co., Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 4285 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns & Co.
58 F. Supp. 2d 228 (S.D. New York, 1999)
Water Works Realty Corp. v. Cytryn
263 A.D.2d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Mina Investment Holdings Ltd. v. Lefkowitz
184 F.R.D. 245 (S.D. New York, 1999)
Granite Partners, LP v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.
17 F. Supp. 2d 275 (S.D. New York, 1998)
WMW Machinery Co. v. Koerber AG.
240 A.D.2d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 A.D.2d 324, 642 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rapp-boxx-inc-v-mtv-inc-nyappdiv-1996.