From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Avant Graphics v. United Reprographics

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 30, 1998
252 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

dismissing a tortious interference with contract claim because "plaintiff had no contract with either [defendant] at the time of the purported interference"

Summary of this case from Republic of Turkey v. Christie's Inc.

Opinion

July 30, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.).


In this action between competitors in the reprographics industry, in which it is alleged that defendants, acting in concert, attempted to prevent plaintiff from obtaining "responsible lowest bidder status" on two contracts with the New York City Housing Authority and the City Department of General Services, we agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded its second cause of action for tortious interference with its prospective contractual relationships with the two City agencies; its third cause of action pursuant to the Donnelly Act (General Business Law § 340 Gen. Bus.) for monopoly or an unreasonable restraint on competition; and its fifth cause of action asserted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. [RICO]). However, its first cause of action fails to state a cause of action for tortious interference with contract or business relations, which requires: (1) the existence of a valid contract, (2) defendants' knowledge of the contract, (3) defendants' intentional interference with the contract and a resulting breach, and (4) damages ( Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413, 424). In this case, plaintiff had no contract with either the Housing Authority or the Department of General Services at the time of the purported interference. All it had was a determination that it was the lowest bidder. As such, this cause of action must fail ( see, NBT Bancorp v. Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 87 N.Y.2d 614), although the complained of acts are really subsumed in the second cause of action. Moreover, plaintiff's fourth cause of action for business defamation must be dismissed with leave to replead inasmuch as the affidavit of plaintiff's principal and the accompanying exhibits are insufficient to overcome the failure of the complaint to set forth the particular words alleged to be defamatory as required by CPLR 3016 (a).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Nardelli, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Avant Graphics v. United Reprographics

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 30, 1998
252 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

dismissing a tortious interference with contract claim because "plaintiff had no contract with either [defendant] at the time of the purported interference"

Summary of this case from Republic of Turkey v. Christie's Inc.
Case details for

Avant Graphics v. United Reprographics

Case Details

Full title:AVANT GRAPHICS LTD., Doing Business as GRAPHIC DETAILS, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jul 30, 1998

Citations

252 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
676 N.Y.S.2d 160

Citing Cases

Min Aung Wong v. N.Y. Downtown Hosp.

The third cause of action purports to state a claim for tortious interference with doctor-patient…

SHEILA C. v. Povich

rative language in expressing their views" (Horsley v Rivera, 292 F3d 695, 702 [11th Cir 2002] [suit…