From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chaitman v. Moezinia

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 22, 2015
132 A.D.3d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

10-22-2015

Jennifer CHAITMAN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Francis MOEZINIA, et al., Defendants–Respondents. [And A Third–Party Action].

Chaitman LLP, New York (Helen Davis Chaitman of counsel), for appellants. Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata LLP, New York (Mindy L. Jayne of counsel), for respondents.


Chaitman LLP, New York (Helen Davis Chaitman of counsel), for appellants.

Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata LLP, New York (Mindy L. Jayne of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 17, 2014, which denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The proposed amendments are palpably insufficient and devoid of merit (see MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 A.D.3d 499, 499, 901 N.Y.S.2d 522 [1st Dept.2010] ). The allegations do not show that defendants “acted solely out of malice” or that they “used improper or illegal means” so as to support the proposed claim for tortious interference with business relations (Amaranth LLC v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 71 A.D.3d 40, 47, 888 N.Y.S.2d 489 [1st Dept.2009], lv. dismissed in part, denied in part 14 N.Y.3d 736, 898 N.Y.S.2d 74, 925 N.E.2d 73 [2010] ). To the extent plaintiffs contend that they may recover damages for the “non-nominative tort for intentional and unprivileged infliction of temporal harm,” even assuming, without deciding, that we recognize such a claim, the conduct alleged does not amount to intentional infliction of harm (see Board of Educ. of Farmingdale Union Free School Dist. v. Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., Local 1889, AFT AFL–CIO, 38 N.Y.2d 397, 406, 380 N.Y.S.2d 635, 343 N.E.2d 278 [1975] ; Morrison v. National Broadcasting Co., 24 A.D.2d 284, 291, 266 N.Y.S.2d 406 [1st Dept.1965] ). As the proposed amended complaint failed to adequately state a tort claim against the individual or corporate defendants, the proposed claim for punitive damages is nonviable (see Prote Contr. Co. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 276 A.D.2d 309, 310, 714 N.Y.S.2d 36 [1st Dept.2000] ; see also Nutri Cheese & Foods v. Slavin & Sons, 184 A.D.2d 330, 330, 584 N.Y.S.2d 575 [1st Dept.1992] ).

TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Chaitman v. Moezinia

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 22, 2015
132 A.D.3d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Chaitman v. Moezinia

Case Details

Full title:Jennifer CHAITMAN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Francis MOEZINIA, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 22, 2015

Citations

132 A.D.3d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
17 N.Y.S.3d 864
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 7750

Citing Cases

Prager Metis CPAS LLC v. Koenig

Prager seeks to replace the fourth cause of action for tortious interference with prospective economic…

Prager Metis CPAS LLC v. Goldstein

A cause of action for tortious inference with prospective economic advantage requires the plaintiff to plead…