Summary
dismissing plaintiff's tortious interference with business relations claim because defendants' alleged wrongful conduct in filing misleading application with the Federal Reserve Bank did not interfere "with any identifiable business relationship then existing between plaintiff and a third party"
Summary of this case from Barr Laboratories, Inc. v. Quantum Pharmics, Inc.Opinion
May 10, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.).
The IAS court properly determined that the fifth cause of action failed to state a viable claim for tortious interference with business relations or for intentional misrepresentation. The alleged wrongful conduct by the defendants, plaintiff's former employers, in attempting to mislead the Federal Reserve Bank in connection with their application to be appointed a primary dealer of United States Government securities, would not have interfered with any identifiable business relationship then existing between the plaintiff and a third party. (Guard-Life Corp. v. Parker Hardware Mfg. Co., 50 N.Y.2d 183; Sommer v Kaufman, 59 A.D.2d 843 [1st Dept 1977].) Moreover, the complaint failed to plead in detail a cause of action for fraud as required by CPLR 3016 (b). (Greschler v. Greschler, 51 N.Y.2d 368; Lanzi v. Brooks, 54 A.D.2d 1057 [3d Dept 1976], affd 43 N.Y.2d 778.)
Similarly, the IAS court properly dismissed the sixth cause of action alleging that the defendants had engaged in deceptive acts or practices which intentionally misled plaintiff and the Federal Reserve Bank in violation of New York General Business Law § 349. It is well settled that the purpose of that statute is to protect the public and to provide a remedy for injuries resulting from consumer fraud. (Azby Brokerage v Allstate Ins. Co., 681 F. Supp. 1084 [SD N Y 1988]; Genesco Entertainment v. Koch, 593 F. Supp. 743 [SD N Y 1984]; Waste Distillation Technology v. Blasland Bouck Engrs., 136 A.D.2d 633, 634 [2d Dept 1988].)
Finally, the scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in the amended complaint, which is substantially the same matter ordered deleted from the original complaint, was properly stricken pursuant to CPLR 3024 (b). (Wegman v. Dairylea Coop., 50 A.D.2d 108, 111 [4th Dept 1975], lv dismissed 38 N.Y.2d 918.)
Concur — Ross, J.P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.