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, explaining:
The seventh cause of action in the ACC and the fifth cause of action in Gasko & Meyer, Inc. (Gasko)’s Answer to Amended Complaint with Counterclaims (the GACC) for tortious interference against Manhattan Beer Distributors LLC (MB) are also not dismissed.
Tortious interference with contract requires (i) the existence of a valid contract between a plaintiff and a third party, (ii) defendant’s knowledge of that contract, (iii) defendant’s intentional procurement of the third-party’s breach of the contract without justification, (iv) actual breach of the contract, and (v) damages resulting therefrom. But-for causation must also be alleged. It is undisputed that the Distribution Agreements are valid contracts. Defendants allege MB knew of these contracts, that the contracts were breached, and that damages resulted. The only real dispute concerns whether the pleadings sufficiently allege that MB intentionally procured Boston Beer’s breach. They do. Defendants allege, and Plaintiffs do not contest, that MB signed an indemnification agreement with Boston Beer whereby MB agreed to pay all costs, including fair market value of distribution rights and legal costs, incurred by Boston Beer in connection with termination of the Distribution Agreements. In sum and substance, the Defendants allege that by agreeing to flip the bill for Boston Beer’s allegedly improper terminations of the agreements that MB knew about (and wanted terminated), MB induced Boston Beer to breach. In further support, the Defendants allege MB’ s president stated to one of the Defendants that Manhattan Beer and Boston Beer have been planning a consolidation in New York for the past five years. Put another way, the Defendants contend that but for MB’s targeted actions, Boston Beer would not have breached.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).