John R. Loftus, Inc. v. White
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | Before CASEY; MIKOLL; CASEY |
| Citation | 150 A.D.2d 857,540 N.Y.S.2d 610 |
| Parties | JOHN R. LOFTUS, INC., Appellant, v. David R. WHITE et al., Defendants, and Henry J. Klersy, Jr., et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 04 May 1989 |
Page 610
v.
David R. WHITE et al., Defendants,
and
Henry J. Klersy, Jr., et al., Respondents.
Third Department.
Page 611
Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle (Robert J. Alessi, of counsel), Albany, for appellant.
Tobin & Dempf (R. Christopher Dempf, of counsel), Albany, for respondents.
Before CASEY, J.P., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH, LEVINE and MERCURE, JJ.
MIKOLL, Justice.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Conway, J.), entered January 26, 1988 in Albany County, which granted the motion of various defendants to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action of the amended complaint.
Defendants David R. White and Mary C. White purchased certain land from defendant Klersy Building Corporation. * Prior to the Whites gaining title to the property, they orally agreed with plaintiff that plaintiff would supervise the construction of a single-family residence on the newly acquired land for a fee of $90,000 plus expenses and costs. The agreement also provided that plaintiff would be paid its full fee and expenses whether the Whites subsequently withdrew or otherwise decided not to proceed in furtherance of the contract. Plaintiff commenced working on the contract and had already incurred approximately $6,200 in costs and expenses before being notified that it would not be building the residence.
Plaintiff then initiated this action alleging in an amended complaint causes of action against the Whites for breach of contract and against Klersy for tortious interference with a contract and malicious interference with a business relationship. Specifically, in the third and fourth causes of action, plaintiff charged that Klersy, with knowledge of plaintiff's agreement with the Whites, intentionally interfered with the contract by refusing to transfer title to the Whites and impeded the issuance of necessary permits unless the Whites ended their contract with plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleged that thereafter the Whites were coerced into executing a contract with Klersy for the construction of the house. Plaintiff seeks $250,000 compensatory damages and $500,000 punitive damages in each cause of action alleged against Klersy.
Klersy moved to dismiss both causes of action alleged against it for failure to state a cause of action, claiming that the allegations were not sufficiently specific to establish a tortious interference with a contract or business relationship. Plaintiff served an affidavit in opposition to Klersy's motion which stated the terms of the oral contract with the Whites, explained the basis for its belief that Klersy coerced the Whites into breaching the contract, and more fully set forth the reasoning for the damages demanded.
Supreme Court, in granting Klersy's motion to dismiss, held that the conclusory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Intertek Testing Servs., N.A. v. Frank Pennisi, Nicholas Pennisi, Wendy Asklund & Big Apple Testing, Inc., 19-cv-7103 (SJF)(ARL)
...Inc. v. Vernikov , No. 15 Civ. 02333, 2016 WL 11472749, at * 17 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2016) ; see also John R. Loftus, Inc. v. White , 150 A.D.2d 857, 860, 540 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989) (holding that a conclusory allegation of malice is insufficient to state a cause of action for tort......
-
Deer Consumer Prods., Inc. v. Little Grp., No. 650823/2011.
...and the plaintiff has the burden of proving this fact' “ (72 N.Y. Jur 2d, Interference, § 44, at 240; John R. Loftus, Inc. v. White, 150 A.D.2d 857, 860, 540 N.Y.S.2d 610). There is no indication that plaintiff's alleged loss resulted from anything other than the harm to plaintiff's reputat......
-
Scholastic, Inc., v. Stouffer, No. 99 Civ. 11480(AGS).
...or unlawful means, a necessary element of a claim for tortious interference with business relations. See John R. Loftus, Inc. v. White, 150 A.D.2d 857, 540 N.Y.S.2d 610, 612 (3d Dep't 1989) (dismissing claim for tortious interference with prospective business advantage where plaintiff "does......
-
In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Securities Litig., No. 98 CIV. 7161(VM).
...knowledge of the contract and intentional interference with it; the resulting breach; and damages. See Loftus, Inc. v. White, 150 A.D.2d 857, 540 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y.App. Div.3d Dep't 1989). The Rieger Noteholders allege that defendants interfered with the change-of-control clause in the Trus......
-
Scholastic, Inc., v. Stouffer, No. 99 Civ. 11480(AGS).
...or unlawful means, a necessary element of a claim for tortious interference with business relations. See John R. Loftus, Inc. v. White, 150 A.D.2d 857, 540 N.Y.S.2d 610, 612 (3d Dep't 1989) (dismissing claim for tortious interference with prospective business advantage where plaintiff "......
-
In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Securities Litig., No. 98 CIV. 7161(VM).
...knowledge of the contract and intentional interference with it; the resulting breach; and damages. See Loftus, Inc. v. White, 150 A.D.2d 857, 540 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y.App. Div.3d Dep't 1989). The Rieger Noteholders allege that defendants interfered with the change-of-control clause in the Trus......
-
Intertek Testing Servs., N.A. v. Frank Pennisi, Nicholas Pennisi, Wendy Asklund & Big Apple Testing, Inc., 19-cv-7103 (SJF)(ARL)
...Inc. v. Vernikov , No. 15 Civ. 02333, 2016 WL 11472749, at * 17 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2016) ; see also John R. Loftus, Inc. v. White , 150 A.D.2d 857, 860, 540 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989) (holding that a conclusory allegation of malice is insufficient to state a cause of action for tort......
-
Deer Consumer Prods., Inc. v. Little Grp., No. 650823/2011.
...and the plaintiff has the burden of proving this fact' “ (72 N.Y. Jur 2d, Interference, § 44, at 240; John R. Loftus, Inc. v. White, 150 A.D.2d 857, 860, 540 N.Y.S.2d 610). There is no indication that plaintiff's alleged loss resulted from anything other than the harm to plaintiff's reputat......