An appellate panel affirmed the dismissal of a Florida lawyer's claims that a New Jersey attorney poached his clients and defamed him.

The New Jersey Appellate Division ruling means plaintiff Ronald W. Horowitz, a freight transportation lawyer, fails in his pro se suit against Richard Furman and his firm, Kennedys CMK.

"Ordinarily, summary judgment is inappropriate prior to the completion of discovery," the panel said. But "we conclude from our de novo review that plaintiff did not meet his burden" of laying out a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations.

Horowitz accused Furman of wrongdoing with a former client, GMG Transportation Inc., arguing he had a valid 15-year contract with GMG and the defendants intended to harm him by inducing GMG to violate that agreement.

Horowitz also alleged tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and defamation, alleging the defendants defamed him by stating he was incapable of properly and effectively representing GMG, and depicted him in a false light by suggesting he failed to properly represent GMG.

The suit named Kennedys CMK and Carroll McNulty Kull. The law firm was formed when global law firm Kennedys merged with Carroll McNulty Kull in 2017.

"The only other parties with knowledge of the alleged conversations — Furman, [John] Coviello, GMG's president and [Edmund] Giza, GMG's former president — denied in sworn affidavits that any of the conversations took place, and plaintiff failed to show that depositions or any other discovery of these same or any other individuals would elicit contradicting or additional information to support his claims," Appellate Division Judges Joseph Yannotti, Garry Rothstadt and Arnold Natali Jr. said in a per curiam ruling Aug. 26.

They affirmed Monmouth County Superior Court Judge Marc Lemieux, who dismissed the case based on failure to sufficiently plead the claims and summary judgment.

Horowitz, who had a solo practice in Middletown, New Jersey, before moving to Florida, could not be reached for comment by deadline.

The Palm Coast attorney has been a Florida Bar member since 1985. His discipline record includes a 2018 admonishment for minor misconduct in a case that ended with a conditional guilty plea. He sought a refund for a continuing legal education course due to technical issues and admitted contacting a seminar employee after being told the company had an attorney.

Kevin Haas of Clyde & Co. in Summit, New Jersey, represented Furman and the other defendants in the New Jersey case. Haas was not immediately available for comment.

Beginning in 2002, the appellate decision said Horowitz regularly represented GMG Transportation and GMG Transwest Corp., two New York freight transportation companies collectively known as GMG.

Horowitz was retained to recover $250,000 from a former customer, and he sued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, obtaining a $250,000 default judgment. The judgment was vacated, and the customer sued GMG in New York state court, claiming conversion of its freight.

Years passed, and in 2015, Horowitz urged GMG to hire Furman, a freight transportation lawyer then with Carroll McNulty Kull, to serve as local counsel in New York. Furman attended court and prepared documents, and both he and Horowitz participated in the 2016 trial.

Horowitz's suit alleged Furman bad mouthed him to GMG executives during an adjournment in the proceedings, urging them to fire Horowitz. GMG did so in July 2016. Horowitz later claimed in removing him that GMG officials told him their decision was based on Furman's statement of Horowitz's handling of the New York case. Coviello asked Horowitz to forward all files and documents to Furman, and GMG never again gave work to Horowitz, according to the decision.

After Horowitz filed his suit, the defendants moved to dismiss in January 2018.

Horowitz opposed the motion, pointing to Nostrame v. Santiago, a 2013 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Courtm which held, there are "only rare circumstances in which an attorney will behave in a manner that could translate into a claim by another attorney for tortious interference."

The court emphasized attorneys may not defame, defraud, intimidate, harass, make comparisons or misrepresent in an effort to win a client's business.

Horowitz also relied on the Rules of Professional Conduct in contending Furman's actions were improper.

Lemieux dismissed as time-barred Horowitz's defamation claim with prejudice but granted him leave to amend his complaint on the remaining two claims, according to the decision. Horowitz filed a second amended complaint in 2018.

"Notably, the complaint was silent as to the source of any of Horowitz's allegations about what Furman allegedly told GMG's representatives about him," the Appellate Division said.

The defendants again moved to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment. Certifications from Coviello and Giza denied being advised by Furman to dump Horowitz as counsel.

Lemieux granted dismissal, holding in part that the suit relied on insufficient "personal assertions." The judge rejected claims that Horowitz should've been allowed to depose the defendants to gather additional facts and said Horowitz failed to give examples of the defendants' allegedly misleading statements.

The panel found the complaint "was properly dismissed with prejudice," noting Horowitz "did not allege that the disparaging statements were made to him or in his presence, nor did he divulge how they were otherwise made known to him."