ROCKWELL GLOBAL CAPITAL, LLC, plf-ap, v. SOREIDE LAW GROUP, PLLC def-res, SALVATORE CLARK, def

8476. ROCKWELL GLOBAL CAPITAL, LLC, plf-ap, v. SOREIDE LAW GROUP, PLLC def-res, SALVATORE CLARK, def — Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum PLLC, New York (Brian D. Graifman of counsel), for ap — Law Offices of John E. Lawlor, Mineola (John E. Lawlor and Ian Y. Park of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered May 29, 2012, which denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaims alleged by defendants Soreide Law Group, PLLC, Lars K. Soreide, and Frederick J. Seely's for tortious interference with contract (first), tortious interference with business relations (second), tortious interference with business expectancy (third) and malicious prosecution (fourth), unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion to the extent of dismissing the second, third, and fourth counterclaims, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8476. ROCKWELL GLOBAL CAPITAL, LLC, plf-ap, v. SOREIDE LAW GROUP, PLLC def-res, SALVATORE CLARK, def — Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum PLLC, New York (Brian D. Graifman of counsel), for ap — Law Offices of John E. Lawlor, Mineola (John E. Lawlor and Ian Y. Park of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered May 29, 2012, which denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims alleged by defendants Soreide Law Group, PLLC, Lars K. Soreide, and Frederick J. Seely’s for tortious interference with contract (first), tortious interference with business relations (second), tortious interference with business expectancy (third) and malicious prosecution (fourth), unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion to the extent of dismissing the second, third, and fourth counterclaims, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court properly declined to dismiss the counterclaim for tortious interference with contract. The record shows that plaintiff knew that defendants had entered into various contracts with plaintiff’s former customers for the purpose of commencing arbitration proceedings to recover lost investments. Defendants alleged that without justification, plaintiff commenced the instant action in order to render defendants’ representation of their clients impossible (see generally Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 81 NY2d 90, 94 [1993]).

ROCKWELL GLOBAL CAPITAL, LLC, plf-ap, v. SOREIDE LAW GROUP, PLLC def-res, SALVATORE CLARK, def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal