Opinion
2002-05618
Argued April 10, 2003.
April 28, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered May 1, 2002, which granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7) to dismiss the complaint.
Anthony M. Supino, New York, N.Y., for appellants.
Davis Polk Wardwell, New York, N.Y. (Guy Miller Struve and D. Scott Tucker of counsel), and Robert Ernst, New York, N.Y., for respondents Bell Atlantic Corporation and Bell Atlantic Yellow Pages Company, and Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, New York, N.Y. (Thomas E. Albright, G. Lee Garrett, Jr., and Michael J. Templeton of counsel), for respondent R.H. Donnelley, Inc. (one brief filed).
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion which was to dismiss so much of the complaint as alleged that the defendants intentionally interfered with the plaintiffs' business relationship with Phil Griffen, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To establish a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, "a plaintiff must demonstrate that the alleged interferer used unlawful or improper means or that the interference by lawful means constituted the infliction of intentional harm done without excuse or justification" (Bogdan v. Peekskill Community Hosp., 211 A.D.2d 692, 693, citing Alexander Alexander v. Fritzen, 68 N.Y.2d 968, 969; see also Datlow v. Paleta Intern. Corp., 199 A.D.2d 362). The complaint informed the defendants of the incidents complained of regarding the advertiser Phil Griffin and was pleaded in sufficient detail (see Lanzi v. Brooks, 43 N.Y.2d 778, 780).
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed their claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage on the ground of res judicata insofar as it relates to advertisers other than Griffin (see O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357).
FLORIO, J.P., H. MILLER, ADAMS and RIVERA, JJ., concur.