Tri-Star International Management, Inc. v. International Merchandising Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tri-Star International Management, Inc. v. International Merchandising Corp.

188 A.D.2d 387, 591 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14284

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 387 (Tri-Star International Management, Inc. v. International Merchandising Corp.) 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

Tri-Star International Management, Inc. v. International Merchandising Corp., 188 A.D.2d 387, 591 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol H. Arber, J.), entered March 18, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and denied plaintiffs cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint in this action for interference with prospective contractual relations was properly dismissed for failure to allege any dishonest or unlawful means (see, Harden, S.P.A. v Commodore Elecs., 90 AD2d 733, 734). This basic deficiency was not cured by plaintiffs proposed amendment, which relates only to a change in the form of plaintiffs business organization from a corporation to a partnership. Thus leave to amend was properly denied (East Asiatic Co. v Corash, 34 AD2d 432). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol H. Arber, J.), entered March 18, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and denied plaintiffs cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint in this action for interference with prospective contractual relations was properly dismissed for failure to allege any dishonest or unlawful means (see, Harden, S.P.A. v Commodore Elecs., 90 AD2d 733, 734). This basic deficiency was not cured by plaintiffs proposed amendment, which relates only to a change in the form of plaintiffs business organization from a corporation to a partnership. Thus leave to amend was properly denied (East Asiatic Co. v Corash, 34 AD2d 432). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 387, 591 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-star-international-management-inc-v-international-merchandising-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack