Opinion
December 19, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered May 17, 1999, granting plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar with respect to plaintiff's claim for use and occupancy, and, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying the motion with respect to plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Joshua L. Mallin, for plaintiff-appellant.
Ellen Ravitch, for defendant-respondent.
Before: Lerner, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.
The IAS court correctly held that plaintiff's claim that defendant's holding over constituted a tortious interference with a lease plaintiff had entered into with a prospective tenant is a mere restatement of plaintiff's breach of information claim which was dismissed by this Court on a prior appeal ( 248 A.D.2d 106, lv dismissed 92 N.Y.2d 947). Since we held that the claim for consequential damages under the cause of action for breach of contract could not proceed, the IAS court properly refused to restore for lack of merit plaintiff's cause of action for tortious interference.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.