From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Butler v. Otsego Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 5, 1996
234 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

December 5, 1996.

Spain, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mugglin, J.), entered January 8, 1996 in Otsego County, which, inter alia, partially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ.


The relevant facts underlying this litigation may be found in our recent decision of an earlier appeal in this matter ( 218 AD2d 357); there, we affirmed Supreme Court's partial denial of defendants' motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211, to dismiss the complaint. During the pendency of the aforementioned appeal defendants moved for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting summary judgment. Supreme Court determined that defendants were entitled to summary judgment regarding the first and third causes of action of plaintiff David K. Butler, Sr. and the first cause of action of plaintiff Woodsmen Builders, Inc. However, Supreme Court denied that portion of the motion regarding the remaining causes of action for "interference with expected future business". Defendants appeal.

We affirm. Plaintiffs' submissions in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment overcome any entitlement defendants may have shown for such relief ( see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Flacke v NL Indus., 228 AD2d 888). Although, in this case, plaintiffs and defendants are not competing business entities, the "wrongful means" burden as enunciated in NBT Bancorp v Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group ( 87 NY2d 614) and Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp. ( 50 NY2d 183) has been met. Plaintiffs have tendered proof, in evidentiary form, that defendants, inter alia, removed derogatory information from Butler's confidential personnel file and deliberately disseminated that information adversely affecting plaintiffs' prospective contractual relations with specific customers.

We have considered defendants' remaining contention, which raises a constitutional issue, and find it to be without merit.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Butler v. Otsego Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 5, 1996
234 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Butler v. Otsego Corp.

Case Details

Full title:DAVID K. BUTLER, SR., et al., Respondents, v. DELAWARE OTSEGO CORPORATION…

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

Date published: Dec 5, 1996

Citations

234 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
650 N.Y.S.2d 483

Citing Cases

State v. Hiller

Defendants also assert that, although the ledger contains information known only to employees of Sing Sing…

Jabbour v. Albany Medical Center

However, the record establishes that the April 16, 1992 letter from St. Clare's to plaintiff, accepting…