On September 4, 2024, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in BT Supplies W., Inc. v. Brookline, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 33101(U), holding that a plaintiff cannot use a tortious interference claim to avoid the one-year statute of limitations for defamation, explaining:
Here, Lilogy alleges that because BT Supplies expressed in its arbitration testimony that it had a bad taste in its mouth and felt that it had gotten screwed by Lilogy, BT Supplies must have therefore made false statements which induced an evil opinion to FFB in their private communications and tortiously interfered with Lilogy and FFB’s business relationship. Thus, looking at the essence of the action and not its mere name Lilogy’s cause of action smacks of a defamation cause of action. As such, Lilogy cannot circumvent the one year statute of limitations for defamation pursuant to CPLR 215(3) merely by changing the name of the alleged tort from defamation to misrepresentation.
Even if this were a misrepresentation claim as Lilogy alleges, its pleading does not satisfy the elements of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. One of the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation is that a defendant intended to induce a plaintiff to carry out some action. Here, Lilogy is alleging that BT Supplies made the false statements to FFB, a third·party, and not to Lilogy itself. Therefore, the cause of action that Lilogy is pleading is in essence a thinly-veiled defamation claim, not a misrepresentation claim. Lilogy’s counterclaim for intentional interference of business relations is dismissed.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).