Robbins v. Panitz

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: COOKE
• Citation: Robbins v. Panitz, 475 N.Y.S.2d 274, 61 N.Y.2d 967, 463 N.E.2d 615 (N.Y. 1984)
• Decision Date: 22 March 1984
• Parties: , 463 N.E.2d 615 Ethan ROBBINS, Respondent, v. Daniel PANITZ et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Page 274

475 N.Y.S.2d 274

61 N.Y.2d 967, 463 N.E.2d 615

Ethan ROBBINS, Respondent, v. Daniel PANITZ et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 22, 1984.

Claude Castro, New York City, for Daniel Panitz, appellant.

[463 N.E.2d 616] Alexander Finer for Eric Katz, appellant.

George L. Santangelo, New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 91 A.D.2d 1212, 458 N.Y.S.2d 970, insofar as appealed from should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

The Trial Judge awarded plaintiff judgment against the individual defendants and two corporations for $39,000 as the value of plaintiff's one-third interest in the corporations and $31,200 as salary to which plaintiff would have been entitled during the 52 weeks following his discharge, and otherwise dismissed the complaint. The individual defendants appeal pursuant to our leave.

The salary award against the individuals cannot stand because the proof establishes no more than an employment by the corporation. Nor, although there was a motion to conform the pleadings to the proof at the end of the trial, can the salary award be sustained on the theory of interference with contractual relations. A corporate officer is not personally liable for causing the corporation to terminate an employment contract "unless his activity involves individual separate tortious acts" (A.S. Rampell, Inc. v. Hyster Co., 3 N.Y.2d 369, 378, 165 N.Y.S.2d 475, 144 N.E.2d 371; accord Murtha v. Yonkers Child Care Assn., 45 N.Y.2d 913, 411 N.Y.S.2d 219, 383 N.E.2d 865). The Trial Judge held these defendants liable notwithstanding his conclusion that whether plaintiff was discharged for cause was irrelevant.

Equally infirm is the award for the value of plaintiff's...