TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Washington Avenue Associates, Inc. v. Euclid Equipment, Inc.

Washington Avenue Associates, Inc. v. Euclid Equipment, Inc., and MIF Realty L.P.

Wash. Ave. Associates, Inc. v. Euclid Equip., Inc., 229 A.D.2d 486 (1996)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 15, 1996
Citations
229 A.D.2d 486645 N.Y.S.2d 5111996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7767

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with a contract, the defendant MIF Realty L.P. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated June 15, 1995, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. The appellant’s notice of appeal from an order of the same court dated April 26, 1995, which, upon reargument, adhered to its determination made in a decision dated January 27, 1995, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order dated June 15, 1995, entered upon the decision (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, *487 on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

In order to state a cause of action for tortious interference with a contract a plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that the defendant intentionally induced a third party to breach or otherwise render performance of a contract with the plaintiff impossible (see, Kronos, Inc. v AVX Corp., 81 NY2d 90, 94 ; Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 NY2d 183, 189-190 ; Home Town Muffler v Cole Muffler, 202 AD2d 764, 766 ). Specifically, the plaintiff must allege that the contract would not have been breached "but for” the defendant’s conduct (see, Israel v Wood Dolson Co., 1 NY2d 116 ; Pyramid Brokerage Co. v Citibank (N. Y. State), 145 AD2d 912 ; Key Bank v Lake Placid Co., 103 AD2d 19 ). Although on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) "the [narrow] question presented for review is not whether [the] plaintiff * * * should ultimately prevail in this litigation, but * * * whether [the complaint] state[s] cognizable causes of action” (Becker v Schwartz, 46 NY2d 401, 408 ), the allegations in the complaint cannot be vague and conclusory (see, O'Riordan v Suffolk Ch., Local No. 852, Civ. Serv. Empls. Assn., 95 AD2d 800 ).

Here, the defendant Euclid Equipment, Inc. (hereinafter Euclid) breached its lease with the plaintiff by failing to make three consecutive rent payments. The plaintiff contends that but for the appellant’s actions Euclid would have cured the breach and paid the subsequent rent payments that became due each month. However, the plaintiff did not support this conclusory allegation with any relevant facts. Indeed, the plaintiff merely asserted that the appellant had conversations with Euclid which caused Euclid to breach the lease agreement. The plaintiff’s contention that Euclid breached the lease because of the appellant’s actions, without a factual basis to support it, was insufficient to state a cause of action against the appellant for tortious interference with contractual relations (see, S.A.E. Motor Parts Co. v Tenenbaum, 226 AD2d 518 ; M.J. & K. Co. v Matthew Bender & Co., 220 AD2d 488 ; Fitzpatrick, Jr. Constr. Corp. v County of Suffolk, 138 AD2d 446, 449 ).

It is well established that leave to amend pleadings under CPLR 3025 (b) is to be freely given provided that there is no prejudice to the nonmoving party and that the amendment is not plainly lacking in merit (see, Metral v Horn, 213 AD2d 524 ). The courts, however, should pass upon the proposed *488 pleading’s merit before granting leave to amend so as to promote judicial economy and avoid wasteful motion practice (see, Zabas v Kard, 194 AD2d 784 ; Sharapata v Town of Islip, 82 AD2d 350, 362 , affd 56 NY2d 332 ).

Here, the proposed amended complaint suffers from the same defects as the complaint with respect to the causation element of tortious interference with a contract. Accordingly, the court should not have granted leave to amend, since the merits of the proposed amended complaint were insufficient (see, Zabas v Kard, supra).

In light of the foregoing we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 30 cases

View all citing references →
1996: 11997: 11998: 51999: 32000: 12001: 12002: 22003: 12004: 12006: 52007: 22008: 12011: 12014: 12015: 12018: 22023: 119962026peak 1998 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Granite Partners, LP v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.17 F. Supp. 2d 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
  2. Mina Investment Holdings Ltd. v. Lefkowitz184 F.R.D. 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
  3. Mina Investment Holdings Ltd. v. Lefkowitz16 F. Supp. 2d 355 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
  4. Stoianoff v. Gahona248 A.D.2d 525 (1998)
  5. Schuckman Realty, Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A.244 A.D.2d 400 (1997)
  6. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc.155 F. Supp. 2d 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

Most recent

  1. August Constr. Group, Inc. v. DeGroat(N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 21, 2023)
  2. Popat v. Levy328 F. Supp. 3d 106 (W.D.N.Y. 2018)
  3. Carlyle, LLC v. Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC2018 NY Slip Op 2436
  4. Mawere v. Landau130 A.D.3d 986 (2015)
  5. JJM Sunrise Automotive, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.46 Misc. 3d 755 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)
  6. Ferrandino & Son, Inc. v. Wheaton Builders, Inc.82 A.D.3d 1035 (2011)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 15

DepthCaseCited by
Zabas v. Kard, 194 A.D.2d 784 (1993) 22
Guard-Life Corp. v. S. Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 406 N.E.2d 445 (N.Y. 1980) 427
Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289 (N.Y. 1993) 375
Becker v. Schwartz, 386 N.E.2d 807 (N.Y. 1978) 280
Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 134 N.E.2d 97 (N.Y. 1956) 272
Sharapata v. Town of Islip, 437 N.E.2d 1104 (N.Y. 1982) 181
M.J. & K. Co. v. Matthew Bender & Co., 220 A.D.2d 488 (1995) 62
Sharapata v. Town of Islip, 82 A.D.2d 350 (1981) 60
Fitzpatrick v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 138 A.D.2d 446 (1988) 31
O'Riordan v. Suffolk Chapter, 95 A.D.2d 800 (1983) 24
Key Bank v. Lake Placid Co., 103 A.D.2d 19 (1984) 20
Metral v. Horn, 213 A.D.2d 524 (1995) 13
S.A.E. Motor Parts Co. v. Tenenbaum, 226 A.D.2d 518 (1996) 8
Home Town Muffler, Inc. v. Cole Muffler, Inc., 202 A.D.2d 764 (1994) 7
Pyramid Brokerage Co. v. Citibank, 145 A.D.2d 912 (1988) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list