LNYC LOFT, LLC, ETC. plf-ap, v. DAVID J. LOO def, STANLEY PERELMAN def-res

3451-3452. LNYC LOFT, LLC, ETC. plf-ap, v. DAVID J. LOO def, STANLEY PERELMAN def-res — Rosenfeld & Kaplan, LLP, New York (Steven M. Kaplan of counsel), for ap — Ganfer & Shore, LLP, New York (Steven J. Shore of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered February 9, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants-respondents' motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action for tortious interference with contract, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 29, 2016, which granted plaintiff's motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to its February 9, 2016 decision, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3451-3452. LNYC LOFT, LLC, ETC. plf-ap, v. DAVID J. LOO def, STANLEY PERELMAN def-res — Rosenfeld & Kaplan, LLP, New York (Steven M. Kaplan of counsel), for ap — Ganfer & Shore, LLP, New York (Steven J. Shore of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered February 9, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action for tortious interference with contract, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 29, 2016, which granted plaintiff’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to its February 9, 2016 decision, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The record demonstrates that respondents lacked an economic interest in the breaching party, Hudson Opportunity Fund I, LLC, and, rather, acted in their own economic interest in allegedly procuring the breach. Accordingly, they do not have an economic interest defense to the tortious interference claim asserted against them (see White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v. Cintas Corp., 8 NY3d 422, 426 [2007]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. ADF Operating Corp., 50 AD3d 280, 281 [1st Dept 2008]).

LNYC LOFT, LLC, ETC. plf-ap, v. DAVID J. LOO def, STANLEY PERELMAN def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal