On March 21, 2023, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Stier 109 LLC v. 109 S. 5 Prop. LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op. 30876(U), dismissing a tortious interference claim for failure adequately to allege that the defendant procured the contract’s breach, explaining:
Heitman claims that the tortious interference claim against it can be dismissed under any one of three independent grounds: (i) plaintiff fails to plead with the specificity required by CPLR 3016 (b); (ii) plaintiff does not allege how Heitman intentionally procured 109 Property’s alleged breach of contract; and (iii) Heitman’ s exercise of its secured creditor rights is a complete defense. Plaintiff responds that it did adequately plead tortious interference, denying that it must do so with the particularity required under 3016 (b). The allegation is that Heitman knew there was a contract between plaintiff and 109 Property, and “knowingly and intentionally interfered with the Sale Contract by acquiring the Premises in a manner that has caused 109 Property]to breach its express and implied contractual obligations to Plaintiff’ Contract. Further, Heitman structured the Resale
to transfer the Premises in a manner designed to circumvent Section 2.04 of the Sale.. . .
A claim for tortious interference requires “the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party, defendant’s knowledge of that contract, and defendant’s intentional procurement of the third party’s breach of the contract without justification, actual breach of the contract, and plaintiff’s damages resulting from the breach. Specifically, a plaintiff must allege that the contract would not have been breached but for the defendant’s conduct. Although on a motion to dismiss the allegations in a complaint should be construed liberally, to avoid dismissal of a tortious interference with contract claim a plaintiff must support the claim with more than mere speculation.
Heitman’s motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action is granted. Plaintiff has failed to plead facts indicating that Heitman procured 109 Property’s failure to pay the $2,000,000 allegedly due. Plaintiff states that 109 Property’s failure to make the payment (the asserted breach of contract) was caused by Heitman structuring its acquisition of the Premises in a manner designed to circumvent the Post-Closing Obligations. This is insufficient, whether under CPLR 3013 or CPLR 3016 (b), as plaintiff merely asserts, in a conclusory manner and without the support of relevant factual allegations, that Heitman’s actions caused 109 Property to breach the Sale Contract. And contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, this rejection of plaintiff’s prima facie case is not based on plaintiff needing to show wrongful interfering conduct or, at this juncture, evidentiary proof.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).