Britt v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 22 June 2017
• Citation: 151 A.D.3d 606,54 N.Y.S.3d 290 (Mem)
• Parties: Keenan BRITT, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

151 A.D.3d 606
54 N.Y.S.3d 290 (Mem)

Keenan BRITT, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

June 22, 2017.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Melanie T. West of counsel), for appellants.

Glass Krakower LLP, New York (John Hogrogian of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered May 9, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon reargument of defendants' motion to dismiss, denied dismissal of plaintiff's claims for prima facie tort and tortious interference with contract insofar as asserted against the individual defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and those claims dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 12, 2013, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from an order that has been superseded by the order entered May 9, 2016.

Plaintiff's claims for prima facie tort and tortious interference should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.¹ It is well settled that prima facie tort is not designed to " ‘provide a catch-all alternative for every cause of action which cannot stand on its legs' " (Kickertz v. New York Univ., 110 A.D.3d 268, 277, 971 N.Y.S.2d 271 [1st Dept.2013], quoting Bassim v. Hassett, 184 A.D.2d 908, 910, 585 N.Y.S.2d 566 [3d Dept.1992] ). Here, the gravamen of plaintiff's claims relate to his contention that he had a right to return to his permanent computer aide title; this claim was resolved in his favor in the article 78, and plaintiff was fully compensated for that wrong in that proceeding. In the complaint, plaintiff does not identify or itemize with any specificity the special damages he allegedly suffered that are encompassed within the prima facie tort claim (see Phillips v. New York Daily News, 111 A.D.3d 420, 421, 974 N.Y.S.2d 384 [1st Dept.2013] ). Moreover, the complaint does not allege that disinterested malevolence was the sole motivation for the conduct of which he complains (see AREP Fifty–Seventh, LLC v. PMGP Assoc., L.P., 115...