Bradbury v. Cope-Schwarz
Decision Date | 07 July 2005 |
Docket Number | 97453. |
Parties | LINDA ANN MARIE BRADBURY, Appellant, v. DIANA L. WOLLER COPE-SCHWARZ et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In April 2003, plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase real property located in the Town of Middletown, Delaware County, from defendant Diana L. Woller Cope-Schwarz (hereinafter the seller). The closing date was set for June 26, 2003, however, the contract did not include a "time of the essence" clause. Prior to the sale, the seller retained defendant Frank P. Lumia Real Estate Plus* to represent her interests. As relevant herein, the contract did include a mortgage contingency clause stating that the contract was contingent upon plaintiff: The contract further included a nonassignment clause stating that plaintiff may not assign the contract without the seller's approval "and any purported assignment made without such consent is void."
Following execution of the contract, the record reveals several turbulent exchanges between the parties over such issues as, inter alia, the timeliness of the delivery of the executed contract and the accessibility of the property for appraisal. On June 26, 2003, the seller's attorney sent a letter pronouncing "that time is of the essence" and, if plaintiff failed to close by July 15, 2003, she would be in default. However, on July 3, 2003, the seller's attorney delivered another letter to plaintiff stating that since "[p]rompt application for a mortgage was not made and diligently pursued by [plaintiff,] . . . the seller hereby terminates the contract." According to the seller, she learned from her broker that plaintiff had not obtained a mortgage commitment, however, one had been issued to one Donna Englerth, who the seller did not know. The seller also set forth that Englerth's name was added to the contract of sale after its execution without her permission. Although plaintiff's attorney continued to represent that she was ready and willing to go forward with the closing, a sale of the property to defendants Steven Weinstein and Elizabeth Davis (hereinafter collectively referred to as the buyers) was negotiated by the seller's broker and completed on August 11, 2003.
Plaintiff brought a claim for breach of contract in September 2003 against the seller, the buyers, the broker and its employees. That complaint was dismissed against all defendants except the seller. In April 2004, plaintiff commenced this action against all of the same defendants alleging tortious interference with a contract. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, prompting these appeals by plaintiff.
Notably, to sustain a claim for tortious interference with a contract, it must be established that a valid contract existed which a third party knew about, the third party intentionally and improperly procured the breach of the contract and the breach resulted in damage to the plaintiff (see Kronos, Inc. v AVX Corp., 81 NY2d 90, 94 [1993]; Israel v Wood Dolson Co., 1 NY2d 116, 120 [1956]). Upon review of this record, we find that plaintiff's action for tortious interference with a contract was properly dismissed against all defendants.
Initially, with respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Slue v. New York University Medical Center
...without justification; and (4) an actual breach of the contract and damages resulting from such breach. Bradbury v. Cope-Schwarz, 20 A.D.3d 657, 798 N.Y.S.2d 207, 209 (3d Dep't 2005). A viable tortious interference claim requires that plaintiff and a third party have a contract, and that de......
-
Brady v. Calyon Securities (Usa)
... ... 't 2004) (holding that a breach of contract claim was properly dismissed where plaintiff did not identify the contracts allegedly breached); Bradbury v. Woller Cope-Schwarz, 20 A.D.3d 657, 798 N.Y.S.2d 207, 209 (3d Dep't 2005) (listing the first element of tortious interference ... Page 313 ... ...
-
Kosowsky v. Willard Mountain, Inc.
...[1994] ). Accordingly, plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim for tortious interference with contract ( compare Bradbury v. Cope–Schwarz, 20 A.D.3d 657, 659–660, 798 N.Y.S.2d 207 [2005] ). However, we agree with defendants that the claim for termination of the lease and surrender of the pro......
-
Ullmannglass v. Oneida
...in damage to the plaintiff’ ” ( Clearmont Prop., LLC v. Eisner, 58 A.D.3d at 1055, 872 N.Y.S.2d 725, quoting Bradbury v. Cope–Schwarz, 20 A.D.3d 657, 659, 798 N.Y.S.2d 207 [2005]; see Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 90, 94, 595 N.Y.S.2d 931, 612 N.E.2d 289 [1993]; Butler v. Delaware Ot......