Opinion
Index No. 158766/2020 Motion Seq. Nos. 016 017 018 019 NYSCEF Doc. No. 442
01-11-2024
GREGG SINGER, SING FINA CORP., 9TH AND 10TH STREET LLC, Plaintiff, v. BILL DE BLASIO, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS, AARON SOSNICK, PAUL WOLF, EAST VILLAGE COMMUNITY COALITION, INC., GEORGE ARTZ COMMUNICATIONS, INC., HR&A ADVISORS, INC., Defendant.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DATE 07/06/2023, 07/06/2023, 07/06/2023, 07/06/2023
AMENDED DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
ANDREW BORROK, J.S.C.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 016) 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 325, 344, 409 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 017) 305, 306, 307, 308, 326, 345, 394, 395, 396, 397 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 018) 309, 310,311,312, 327, 346, 390, 391,392, 393 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 019) 313, 314, 315, 316, 328, 347,406 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL The motions to dismiss are granted and the amended complaint (the AC; NYSCEF Doc. No. 142) is dismissed. The prior Decisions and Orders issued on these motions (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 344-347) which denied the motions as moot are hereby vacated and superseded by this Decision and Order. Reference is made to (i) a Decision and Order dated April 20, 2022 (the Prior Decision; NYSCEF Doc. No. 105), pursuant to which this Court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss to the extent of dismissing the causes of action for tortious interference with contractual relations and prima facie tort and (ii) a Decision and Order of the Appellate Division dated April 6, 2023 (the Appellate Division Decision; NYSCEF Doc. No. 348) pursuant to which the Appellate Division modified the Prior Decision to the extent of dismissing the cause of action for prospective business relations and otherwise affirmed the Prior Decision. Familiarity with the underlying facts is presumed. Terms used herein but otherwise not defined shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Prior Decision.
The Appellate Di vision Decision was issued on April 6, 2023. Prior to the issuance of the Appellate Division Decision, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dated May 31, 2022 (the AC; NYSCEF Doc. No. 142) alleging causes of action for (i) tortious interference with existing business relations (first and fourth causes of action), (ii) tortious interference with prospective business relations (second cause of action), (iii) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (third cause of action), and (iv) prima facie tort (fifth cause of action). After the Appellate Division Decision was issued, the Court signed four orders to show cause (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 325-328) staying discovery in this case and ordering briefing of the Defendants' motions to dismiss the AC. Before the motions were briefed, the Plaintiffs removed this case to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 333) and the pending motions were denied as moot (NYSCEF Doc. No. 335). This case was then remanded by the Bankruptcy Court by decision and order dated August 17, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 351).
The parties then entered into a stipulation dated September 21, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 353) setting forth a briefing schedule to complete briefing cf the motions to dismiss and to brief the Plaintiffs' motions to amend. The Plaintiffs, however, never filed opposition to the motions to dismiss.
The motions to dismiss are granted on the merits not based solely on the default by Plaintiff. The causes of action alleged in the FAC have either been dismissed or are otherwise barred by the Appellate Division Decision. The Appellate Division Decision explicitly dismissed the causes of action for (i) tortious interference with existing business relations and (ii) tortious interference with prospective business relations. The cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is asserted only as against the City Defendants and is barred by the Appellate Division Decision which held that the City Defendants are entitled to immunity from the Plaintiffs' claims seeking damages because the denial of the permit was a discretionary act. Finally the claim for prima facie tort, which was dismissed without prejudice in the Prior Decision, is dismissed with prejudice because, as conceded in the AC, the Defendants allegedly had other motivations besides injuring the Plaintiffs, including their own self-interest, such that the claim can not lie (Smith v Meridian Tech., Inc., 86 A.D.2d 557, 559 [2d Dept 2011]; see AREP Fifty-Seventh, LLC v PMGP Assoc., LP, 115 A.D.3d 402, 408 [1st Dept 2014]).
It is hereby ORDERED that the motions to dismiss are granted and the AC is dismissed with prejudice.