Opinion
01 Civ. 2698 (LAK)
August 23, 2001
ORDER
Plaintiff contends that defendant, in an attempt to cause plaintiff to drop a medical malpractice case that she had brought against him, "knowingly, intentionally, falsely, and maliciously" told her employer that she had engaged in unethical conduct for the purpose of causing plaintiff to be fired and that plaintiff in fact then was fired. She seeks damages against him on a claim of tortious interference with prospective economic relations. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff has neither alleged nor can prove either that (1) he acted solely for the purpose of injuring her, or (2) but for his actions, her contract would have been renewed. In the alternative, he seeks summary judgment of dismissal on the ground that plaintiff would have lost her job anyway.
It appears that plaintiff was employed pursuant to a contract for a term of years, that defendant knew that the contract was about to expire, and that his actions, according to plaintiff, led the plaintiff's employer not to renew the contract.
In order to state a claim for tortious interference with business relations, a plaintiff must allege:
"(1) business relations between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant's interference with those business relations; (3) the defendant acted with the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff, or used dishonest, unfair or improper means; and (4) injury to the business relationship." Nadel v. Play-by-Play Toys Novelties, Inc., 208 F.3d 368, 382 (2d Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff tacitly concedes that defendant did not act for the sole purpose of injuring her. She contends, however, that defendant's deliberate and knowing misrepresentations to the employer, made for the purpose of inducing her to drop (or in retaliation for her maintaining) the malpractice case, were dishonest, unfair or improper means. And she is right. Wrongful means include "physical violence, fraud, misrepresentation, civil suits, criminal prosecutions, and some degree of economic pressure." Snyder v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc., 252 A.D.2d 294, 300, 684 N.Y.S.2d 235, 239 (1st Dept. 1999). Plaintiff's allegations fall quite comfortably into this category. See, e.g., Albert v. Loksen, 239 F.3d 256, 261, 263, 276 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary judgment improper where there was genuine issue of fact as to whether defendant acted with requisite malice in making defamatory statements about plaintiff in interfering with economic relationship).
Plaintiff"s allegations of injury to the business relationship also are adequate.
As both parties have submitted materials outside the complaint, the Court also considers the alternative motion into one for summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). The basis for the alternative motion is the assertion that plaintiff's employment would not have continued irrespective of defendant's actions. Defendant has not remotely sustained his burden of establishing the lack of any genuine issue of fact in that regard.
Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied in all respects.
SO ORDERED.