From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Korn v. Princz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 25, 1996
226 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 25, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.).


The IAS Court properly characterized the allegations underlying the first cause of action as one for defamation and properly dismissed it as time-barred under the applicable one-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 215). The complaint did not state a cause of action for tortious interference with prospective business relations, as plaintiff now asserts ( see, WFB Telecommunications v. NYNEX Corp., 188 A.D.2d 257, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 709), since there is no allegation that plaintiff was actually and wrongfully prevented from entering into or continuing in a specific business relationship ( McGill v Parker, 179 A.D.2d 98, 105) as a result of defendants' conduct ( Mandelblatt v. Devon Stores, 132 A.D.2d 162, 169).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Korn v. Princz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 25, 1996
226 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Korn v. Princz

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD J. KORN, Appellant, v. GARY PRINCZ et al., Respondents. (And…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 25, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
641 N.Y.S.2d 283

Citing Cases

Williams v. Citigroup, Inc.

Claims regarding these unidentified entities cannot be maintained as they do not provide defendants with…

Von Rohr Equip. Corp. v. Tanner Bolt & Nut Corp.

In order to survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege that it was "actually and wrongfully…