Monex Financial Serv., Ltd. v. Dynamic Currency Conversion, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 August 2010 |
| Citation | 76 A.D.3d 515,904 N.Y.S.2d 919 |
| Parties | MONEX FINANCIAL SERVICES, LTD., et al., appellants, v. DYNAMIC CURRENCY CONVERSION, INC., et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Abelman, Frayne & Schwab, New York, N.Y. (Richard L. Crisona, Jeffrey A. Schwab, and John H. Choi of counsel), for appellants.
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, New York, N.Y. (David Zalman and Robert I. Steiner of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Bucaria, J.), dated April 24, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendantsDynamic Currency Conversion, Inc., and Mark A. Silverman which was for summary judgment dismissing the first and second causes of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract insofar as asserted against them, and (2) from an order of the same court dated September 8, 2009, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment.
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
To prevail on a cause of action alleging tortious interference with an existing contract, the plaintiff must establish the existence of a valid contract between it and a third party, the defendants' knowledge of that contract, the defendants' intentional procurement of the third party's breach of that contract without justification, and damages ( seeLama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413, 424, 646 N.Y.S.2d 76, 668 N.E.2d 1370;Pink v. Half Moon Coop. Apts., S., Inc., 68 A.D.3d 739, 740, 891 N.Y.S.2d 107).Here, the defendantDynamic Currency Conversion, Inc., made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not intentionally procure a breach of the subject contract ( seeDome Prop. Mgt., Inc. v. Barbaria, 47 A.D.3d 870, 850 N.Y.S.2d 208;Schuckman Realty v. Cosentino, 294 A.D.2d 484, 742 N.Y.S.2d 567).The defendantMark A. Silverman also made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he was acting, at all times, on behalf of his principal and within the scope of his authority ( seeManti's Transp., Inc. v. C.T. Lines, Inc., 68...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moulton Paving, LLC v. Town of Poughkeepsie
...646 N.Y.S.2d 76, 668 N.E.2d 1370;Miller v. Theodore–Tassy, 92 A.D.3d 650–651, 938 N.Y.S.2d 172;Monex Fin. Servs., Ltd. v. Dynamic Currency Conversion, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 515, 904 N.Y.S.2d 919;Dome Prop. Mgt., Inc. v. Barbaria, 47 A.D.3d 870, 850 N.Y.S.2d 208;Beecher v. Feldstein, 8 A.D.3d 597,......
-
Saleh v. 5th Ave. Kings Fruit & Vegetables Corp.
...relationships ( see Smith v. Meridian Tech., Inc., 86 A.D.3d 557, 559–560, 927 N.Y.S.2d 141; Monex Fin. Servs., Ltd. v. Dynamic Currency Conversion, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 515, 515–516, 904 N.Y.S.2d 919; NRT Metals. v. Laribee Wire, 102 A.D.2d 705, 706, 476 N.Y.S.2d 335). In opposition, the plaint......
-
Miller v. Theodore-Tassy
...Bancorp v. Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 87 N.Y.2d 614, 620–621, 641 N.Y.S.2d 581, 664 N.E.2d 492; Monex Fin. Servs., Ltd. v. Dynamic Currency Conversion, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 515, 904 N.Y.S.2d 919). Here, Tassy made a prima facie showing of her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitti......
- In re Vincent F.