The dismissal of a former Middletown lawyer's claims that another attorney poached his clients and defamed him was affirmed by an appellate panel.

The Appellate Division ruling means plaintiff Ronald 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," said the panel, but "we conclude from our de novo review that plaintiff did not meet his burden" of making out a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations.

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

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

The suit named Kennedys CMK along with Carroll McNulty Kull. Kennedys CMK was formed when global law firm Kennedys merged with Carroll McNulty Kull, which was finalized 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 Monday.

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

Horowitz, who once had a solo practice in Middletown but has since moved to Florida, could not be reached for comment.

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

According to the decision, beginning in 2002, Horowitz regularly represented GMG Transportation and GMG Transwest Corp., two freight transportation companies located in New York that were collectively known as GMG. Horowitz was retained to recover $250,000 from a former customer, and he filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, obtaining a $250,000 default judgment. But the default 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 would allege that Furman began to bad-mouth him to GMG executives during an adjournment in the proceedings, urging them to fire Horowitz. GMG did so in July 2016. Horowitz later claimed that in removing him, GMG officials told him that their decision was based on Furman's statement of Horowitz's handling of the New York case. Coviello requested that Horowitz 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 in January 2018 moved to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2.

Horowitz opposed the motion, pointing to Nostrame v. Santiago, a 2013 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court. There, the court held that 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," but said 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 that Furman's actions were improper.

Lemieux dismissed as time-barred Horowitz's defamation claim with prejudice, but granted him leave to amend his complaint regarding the remaining two claims, according to the decision.

Horowitz filed a second amended complaint in March 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.

On Monday, the Appellate Division panel, reviewing the case de novo, said attorneys are not only "prohibited from making statements about another attorney that are defamatory or that amount to fraud," but also "may not make misrepresentations, may not use tactics to pressure or harass, may not, except in defined circumstances, make comparisons, may not disparage other attorneys, and may not offer promises about results."

Still, "plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed with prejudice," wrote the panel, noting that 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.

"In any event, and significantly, we conclude the sparse allegations did not amount to the necessary specific and particular pleading of wrongful conduct required by Nostrame," the panel said.

"Plaintiff's complaint was instead 'based on nothing more than his unsupported suspicion that his client would not have discharged him absent some wrongful or improper means,' [and therefore] fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," the court added, quoting from Nostrame.