Kartiganer Associates, P.C. v. Town of New Windsor

• Decision Date: 25 February 1985
• Citation: 108 A.D.2d 898,485 N.Y.S.2d 782
• Parties: KARTIGANER ASSOCIATES, P.C., Respondent, v. TOWN OF NEW WINDSOR, et al., Defendants, Philip A. Crotty, Jr., et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 782

485 N.Y.S.2d 782

108 A.D.2d 898

KARTIGANER ASSOCIATES, P.C., Respondent, v.TOWN OF NEW WINDSOR, et al., DefendantsPhilip A. Crotty, Jr., et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Feb. 25, 1985.

Goetz & Fitzpatrick, P.C., New York City(Neal M. Eiseman, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Shea & Gould, New York City(James E. Frankel, Kenneth H. Lazaruk and Raymond C. Radigan, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Before TITONE, J.P., and O'CONNOR, LAWRENCE and EIBER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for intentional interference with contractual relations, defendantsPhilip A. Crotty, Jr. and Duggan & Crotty appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered March 19, 1984, as denied those branches of their motion which sought dismissal of the sixth and seventh causes of action as against them.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the aforenoted branches of appellants' motion granted, and the sixth and seventh causes of action of the complaint are dismissed as against them.

There is no dispute that from January 1, 1975 until December 31, 1977, defendantPhilip A. Crotty, Jr. served as Town Attorney for codefendant Town of New Windsor.Thereafter, from January 18, 1978 until December 31, 1979, the firm of which he was a member, defendant Duggan & Crotty, served as Town Attorney.

Plaintiff alleges, in its sixth cause of action, that defendantPhilip A. Crotty, Jr., together with others, conspired to induce the codefendant Town of New Windsor to breach unspecified contracts it had with plaintiff.These contracts include one entered into in 1970 wherein plaintiff agreed to provide professional services in connection with a sewage treatment plant expansion (STP contract).The sixth cause of action further alleges that Crotty contrived, along with others, to destroy the plaintiff's business, and that plaintiff suffered damages by way of loss of income, reputation, and goodwill.The seventh cause of action alleges that three other contracts were breached by the town, and, again, that said breach resulted from a conspiracy among certain defendants, including Crotty.

Plaintiff has never specified the legal theory under which relief is sought.In our view, the sixth and seventh causes of action purport to state claims for intentional interference with contractual relations.We further find that the appellants are entitled to summary judgment as to those causes of action.Liability may not be imposed upon Crotty or Duggan & Crotty insofar as the record reveals that they were acting at all relevant times as Town Attorney, and thus, as an agent of the town.An agent cannot be held liable for inducing his principal to breach a contract with a third person, at least where he is acting on behalf of his principal and within the scope of his authority (Murtha v. Yonkers Child Care Assn., 45 N.Y.2d 913, 915, 411 N.Y.S.2d 219, 383 N.E.2d 865;Shaw v. Merrick, 60 A.D.2d 830, 401 N.Y.S.2d 508;Greyhound Corp. v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co., 259 App.Div. 317, 19 N.Y.S.2d 239).There is no proof in this record that Philip Crotty ever acted other than in his...