From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scarola v. Lehrer

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 6, 2008
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50429 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)

Opinion

570554/07.

Decided March 6, 2008.

Plaintiff, as limited by his brief, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered May 25, 2007, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants' counterclaims.

Order (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered May 25, 2007, reversed, with $10 costs, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims is granted.

PRESENT: DAVIS, J.P., SCHOENFELD, HEITLER, JJ.


Defendants' counterclaim for tortious interference with contract should have been dismissed. A claim of tortious interference does not lie since plaintiff was a signatory to the 2002 partnership agreement here at issue, and "only a stranger to a contract, such as a third party, can be held liable for tortious interference with a contract" (Widewaters Prop. Dev. Co. v Katz, 38 AD3d 1220, 1222, citing Koret, Inc. v Christian Dior, S.A., 167 AD2d 156, 157, lv denied 76 NY2d 714). Nor is a triable issue raised with respect to defendants' counterclaim for prima facie tort, since defendants failed to demonstrate that they had sustained special damages and/or that plaintiff's sole motive was disinterested malevolence ( see Spinale v 10 W. 66th St. Corp., 291 AD2d 234, 235; Bainton v Baran, 287 AD2d 317, 318).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


Summaries of

Scarola v. Lehrer

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 6, 2008
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50429 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)
Case details for

Scarola v. Lehrer

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD J.J. SCAROLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANDER LEHRER and REAVIS…

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 6, 2008

Citations

2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50429 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)