Opinion
567 CA 17–02117
06-29-2018
Sadashiv S. SHENOY, M.D., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. KALEIDA HEALTH, Defendant–Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Appeal No. 3.)
HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (CYNTHIA GIGANTI LUDWIG OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. GARVEY & GARVEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW J. GARVEY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.
HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (CYNTHIA GIGANTI LUDWIG OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
GARVEY & GARVEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW J. GARVEY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND NEMOYER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed against defendant Kaleida Health.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action asserting causes of action against various defendants, including one against Kaleida Health (defendant) for tortious interference with business relations. We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion to dismiss the complaint against it because "plaintiff did not adequately plead a cause of action for tortious interference with [business relations]. In such an action ‘[t]he motive for the interference must be solely malicious, and the plaintiff has the burden of proving this fact’ ... Plaintiff, however, does not demonstrate any factual basis for [his] allegations of malice, other than suspicion. This conclusory allegation of malice is therefore insufficient to support such cause of action" ( John R. Loftus, Inc. v. White , 150 A.D.2d 857, 860, 540 N.Y.S.2d 610 [3d Dept. 1989] ; see Hersh v. Cohen, 131 A.D.3d 1117, 1119, 16 N.Y.S.3d 606 [2d Dept. 2015] ; Maas v. Cornell Univ. , 245 A.D.2d 728, 731, 666 N.Y.S.2d 743 [3d Dept. 1997] ). We therefore reverse the order, grant the motion, and dismiss the complaint against defendant. In light of our determination, defendant's remaining contentions are academic.