On December 30, 2024, Justice Patel of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Acrisure, LLC v. Woodruff-Sawyer & Co., 2024 NY Slip Op. 34540(U), holding that it is not necessary for a plaintiff to bring a breach of contract claim when it brings a tortious interference with contract claim, explaining:
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations without also alleging breach of contract in the same pleading. Defendant further argues that this Court cannot determine that the Woodbury Executives’ Employment Agreements were breached as that determination is reserved for the Michigan court. In support of this argument, Defendant exclusively cites Moyal v. Tripost Capital Partners, LLC., 2019 WL 1517731 (N.Y. Cty. Sup. Ct. 2019).
Defendant misinterprets the holding of that case. In Moyal, Judge Scarpulla stated, “in this case, Plaintiffs no longer have a breach of contract claim against the Discontinued Defendants,” but goes on to state that the tortious interference with contractual relations cause of action in that case failed because Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead but for causation. The Moyal court did not hold that the assertion of the underlying cause of action is necessary to maintain aiding and abetting of the same; rather, the Moyal court held that a nonviable underlying claim bars any claim to aiding and abetting. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to provide this Court with any justification as to the necessity of pleading an underlying breach of contract.
(Internal citations omitted).