On October 6, 2023, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Braddock v. Shwarts, 2023 NY Slip Op. 51050(U), dismissing a claim for failure adequately to allege standing to bring a claim based on the assignment of claims, explaining:
As a preliminary matter, Braddock attempts to bring claims for tortious interference with business relations that he says were assigned to him by Conrad and Maresca. However, these claims must be dismissed, because Braddock has not properly pled assignment and thus does not have standing to bring the Assignors’ claims, and because any such claims are also time barred.
Braddock’s bare assertion in the amended complaint that he has been assigned the claims of former Zaycon members Maresca and Conrad is completely unsupported by any writing that actually demonstrates that an assignment has been made (see amended complaint. The amended complaint also fails to identify which claims the Assignors purportedly assigned to Braddock, claiming only that, after he settled with them, they assigned Braddock all claims they possessed as against the instant Defendants. Because the pleadings fail to adequately allege the assignment of those claims, Braddock lacks standing to pursue any claims on behalf of the Assignors.
The law in New York requires either some expressed intent or reference to tort causes of action, or some explicit language evidencing the parties’ intent to transfer broad and unlimited rights and claims, in order to effectuate such an assignment. In other words, to make a valid assignment, the owner must manifest an intention to make the assignee the owner of the claim. If, however, a would-be assignor merely grants another the power to sue on and collect on a claim it confers on the grantee a power of attorney with respect to that claim. The grant of a power of attorney, however, is not the equivalent of an assignment of ownership; and, standing alone, a power of attorney does not enable the grantee to bring suit in his own name.
Here, Braddock fails to supply the court with any factual support for his claim of assignment. Thus, the pleadings do not permit the court to determine whether the assignment language used was actually a complete transfer of ownership in any claims to Braddock, or instead, operated only as a grant of power attorney which is not the equivalent of an assignment of ownership. Accordingly, Braddock has not properly pled the assignment of any claims to him, and thus does not have standing to pursue any of the Assignors’ purported claims.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).