Tortious Interference – Lundin PLLC

Tortious Interference With Business Advantage Claim Fails Due to Inadequate Allegations of Defendant’s Bad Conduct

On May 20, 2025, the First Department issued a decision in Beast Invs., LLC v. Celebrity Virtual Dining, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 03012, holding that a tortious interference with prospective business advantage claim failed because it inadequately alleged the defendant’s bad conduct . . . Continue reading Tortious Interference With Business Advantage Claim Fails Due to Inadequate Allegations of Defendant’s Bad Conduct

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 Continue reading Tortious Interference Claim Does Not Require that Plaintiff Also Bring Breach of Contract Claim

On December 5, 2024, the First Department issued a decision in Valkyrie AI LLC v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2024 NY Slip Op. 06141, holding that an existing contract, without more, was an insufficient basis for alleging a prospective business relationship . . . Continue reading Existing Contract, Without More, Insufficient Basis for Alleging Prospective Business Relationship

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 . . . Continue reading Plaintiff Cannot Use Tortious Interference Claim to Avoid Defamation Statute of Limitations

On May 30, 2024, the First Department issued a decision in Manhattan Chrystie St. Dev. Fund, LLC v. 215 Chrystie Invs. LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op. 02989, holding that corporate officers acting in bad faith and outside the scope of their duties could be held liable for actions taken in corporation’s name . . . Continue reading Corporate Officers Acting in Bad Faith and Outside Scope of Duties Can Be Held Liable for Actions Taken in Corporation’s Name

On December 20, 2023, Justice Platkin of the Albany County Commercial Division issued a decision in Gujral v. Anesthesia Group of Albany, P.C., 2023 NY Slip Op. 51452(U), holding that a tortious interference with prospective advantage claim failed for failure adequately to allege malicious or wrongful conduct . . . Continue reading Tortious Interference with Prospective Advantage Claim Fails for Failure Adequately to Allege Malicious or Wrongful Conduct

On December 15, 2023, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Boston Beer Corp. v. Boening Bros., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op. 34428(U), upholding a tortious interference with contract claim based on allegations that the defendant intentionally procured the breach . . . Continue reading Tortious Interference Claim Upheld Based on Allegations that the Defendant Intentionally Procured the Breach

On October 12, 2023, the First Department issued a decision in Lucas v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op. 05190, dismissing a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations on summary judgment for lack of evidence of wrongful means . . . Continue reading Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations Claim Fails for Lack of Allegations of Wrongful Means

On June 21, 2023, Justice Gomez of the Bronx County Commercial Division issued a decision in August Constr. Group, Inc. v. DeGroat, 2023 NY Slip Op. 50604(U), dismissing a tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim for, among other things, failure to allege a related crime or independent tort . . . Continue reading Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage Claim Fails for Lack of Allegations of a Related Crime or Independent Tort

On May 9, 2023, the First Department issued a decision in Arena Invs., L.P. v. DCK Worldwide Holding Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op. 02476, holding that a party to a contract can still be liable for tortious interference with that contract if it had no contractual duties to the plaintiff . . . Continue reading Party to Contract Can Still be Liable for Tortious Interference if it Had No Duties to the Plaintiff