From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mattesich v. Hayground Cove

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 2009
61 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 311.

April 14, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered July 15, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motions to dismiss the first cause of action for breach of contract as against defendant Hayground Cove Asset Management, LLC (HCAM), and the fourth cause of action as against all defendants for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint in its entirety.

Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (Steven D. Hurd of counsel), for Hayground Cove Asset Management, LLC, Hayground Cove Associates, L.P. and Jason Ader, appellants.

Bressler, Amery Ross, P.C., New York (Andrew W. Sidman of counsel), for David Schrader, appellant.

Liddle Robinson, L.L.P., New York (Christine A. Palmieri of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.


Plaintiff alleges that HCAM, his former employer, breached a nondisparagement agreement, and that, as a result, he was denied a position that he would have otherwise been offered. Defendants however submitted deposition testimony from members of the prospective employer who stated, inter alia, that although plaintiff was under consideration for employment, it was by no means certain that he would have been offered the position. Plaintiff would be unable to prove damages, and thus has no viable claim under a theory of either breach of contract ( see Arts4All, Ltd. v Hancock, 5 AD3d 106, 108; Gordon v Dino De Laurentiis Corp., 141 AD2d 435, 436), or tortious interference with prospective economic advantage ( see Slatkin v Lancer Litho Packaging Corp., 33 AD3d 421; American Preferred Prescription v Health Mgt., 252 AD2d 414, 418-419).


Summaries of

Mattesich v. Hayground Cove

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 2009
61 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Mattesich v. Hayground Cove

Case Details

Full title:JOHN MATTESICH, Respondent, v. HAYGROUND COVE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, et…

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

Date published: Apr 14, 2009

Citations

61 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2843
876 N.Y.S.2d 405

Citing Cases

Khrakovskiy v. Denise

Under New York law, defendants' tortious interference counterclaim would still fail because defendants do not…

Smolev v. Carole Hochman Design Grp., Inc.

CHDG's counterclaims, both of which sound in breach of contract, are dismissed. CHDG asserts that it is not…