Mazarella v. Electropep Datacom Products, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 July 1997
• Citation: 241 A.D.2d 513,661 N.Y.S.2d 530
• Parties: , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 6857 James MAZARELLA, Respondent, v. ELECTROPEP DATACOMM PRODUCTS, INC., etc., Defendant, Mark Lemelman, et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 530

661 N.Y.S.2d 530

241 A.D.2d 513, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 6857

James MAZARELLA, Respondent, v. ELECTROPEP DATACOMM PRODUCTS, INC., etc., Defendant, Mark Lemelman, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

July 21, 1997.

Sawyer, Davis & Halpern, Garden City (James Sawyer, of counsel), for appellants.

Kreines & Engelberg, Mineola (Richard Engelberg, of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Mark Lemelman, Brian Lemelman, and Neil Lemelman appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Schmidt, J.), entered July 3, 1996, which denied their motion to dismiss the third cause of action in the plaintiff's second amended complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The allegations contained in the third cause of action of the plaintiff's second amended complaint, including but not limited to those which accuse the appellants of the diversion of corporate assets to themselves "solely with the intent to avoid the employment agreement [between the plaintiff and the appellants] and to place the corporate defendant in a position of insolvency", are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) (see, Murtha v. Yonkers Child Care Assn., 45 N.Y.2d 913, 411 N.Y.S.2d 219, 383 N.E.2d 865; Hermann v. Bahrami, 236 A.D.2d 516, 654 N.Y.S.2d 158; BIB Constr. Co. v. City of Poughkeepsie, 204 A.D.2d 947, 612 N.Y.S.2d 283; Bank of N.Y. v. Berisford Intl., 190 A.D.2d 622, 594 N.Y.S.2d 152; Courageous Syndicate v. People-To-People Sports Comm., 141 A.D.2d 599, 529 N.Y.S.2d 520; Citicorp Retail Servs. v. Wellington Mercantile Servs., 90 A.D.2d 532, 455 N.Y.S.2d 98). The alleged egregious conduct on the part of the appellants adequately supports a claim of tortious interference with the plaintiff's employment agreement (see, Dolgoff v. Projectavision, Inc., 235 A.D.2d 311, ----, 653 N.Y.S.2d 111, 112, citing, Bank of N.Y. v. Berisford Intl., supra ).

BRACKEN, J.P., and COPERTINO, SANTUCCI and McGINITY, JJ., concur.