From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wiesen v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
May 21, 2020
183 A.D.3d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

11533 Index 654956/16

05-21-2020

Jeremy WIESEN also known as Jeremy Weisen, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant–Respondent.

Heerde Blum LLP, New York (Collin J. Cox of counsel), for appellant. Spears & Imes LLP, New York (Linda Imes and Reed M. Keefe of counsel), for respondent.


Heerde Blum LLP, New York (Collin J. Cox of counsel), for appellant.

Spears & Imes LLP, New York (Linda Imes and Reed M. Keefe of counsel), for respondent.

Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Webber, Gesmer, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered on or about October 1, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendant Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon) to dismiss plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

To support a tortious interference claim, New York law requires that the contract would not have been breached "but for" the defendant's conduct ( Burrowes v. Combs, 25 A.D.3d 370, 373, 808 N.Y.S.2d 50 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 7 N.Y.3d 704, 819 N.Y.S.2d 870, 853 N.E.2d 241 [2006] ; CDR Creances S.A. v. Euro–American Lodging Corp., 40 A.D.3d 421, 422, 837 N.Y.S.2d 609 [1st Dept. 2007] ). Here, the complaint contains no specific allegations to this effect.

Furthermore, it follows that if the alleged underlying breach occurs before the claimed "inducement" by a defendant, the inducement "could not have been the ‘but for’ cause of [the] purported breaches" ( North Star Contr. Corp. v. MTA Capital Constr. Co., 120 A.D.3d 1066, 1071, 993 N.Y.S.2d 11 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Cantor Fitzgerald Assoc. v. Tradition N. Am., 299 A.D.2d 204, 749 N.Y.S.2d 249 [1st Dept. 2002], lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 508, 757 N.Y.S.2d 819, 787 N.E.2d 1165 [2003] ). Plaintiff makes only conclusory allegations in an effort to establish that Verizon knew about the underlying agreements before nonparty Ram Telecom International, Inc. is alleged to have breached them.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Wiesen v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
May 21, 2020
183 A.D.3d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Wiesen v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Jeremy Wiesen also known as Jeremy Weisen, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Verizon…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: May 21, 2020

Citations

183 A.D.3d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
122 N.Y.S.3d 511
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 2965

Citing Cases

Tutor Perini Bldg. Corp. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (In re George Wash. bridge Bus Station Dev. Venture)

And "if the alleged underlying breach occurs before the claimed 'inducement' by a defendant, the inducement…

Resorts Grp. v. Cerberus Capital Mgmt.

The tortious interference claims are dismissed based on the economic-interest doctrine and because the…