Opinion
11533 Index 654956/16
05-21-2020
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.