Opinion
CA 18-01305 567
08-22-2019
TRANSPO BUS SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK BUS SALES, L.L.C., Defendant–Respondent.
HOLTZBERG LAW FIRM, ROCHESTER, HARRIS BEACH PLLC, PITTSFORD (SVETLANA K. IVY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT. BARCLAY DAMON, LLP, SYRACUSE (BELLA S. SATRA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
HOLTZBERG LAW FIRM, ROCHESTER, HARRIS BEACH PLLC, PITTSFORD (SVETLANA K. IVY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT.
BARCLAY DAMON, LLP, SYRACUSE (BELLA S. SATRA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that defendant interfered with its contract to provide transportation services to nonparty Brighton Central School District (Brighton) by forwarding to Brighton an email originally sent from plaintiff's consultant to defendant. Plaintiff appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted that part of defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.
"Tortious interference with contract requires the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party, defendant's knowledge of that contract, defendant's intentional procurement of the third-party's breach of the contract without justification, actual breach of the contract, and damages resulting therefrom" ( Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413, 424, 646 N.Y.S.2d 76, 668 N.E.2d 1370 [1996] ). We conclude that defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the affidavit of its owner stating that, in forwarding the email, defendant did not intend to induce a breach of the contract but instead intended to minimize any harm to defendant's reputation and to encourage Brighton to persuade plaintiff to perform its obligations under the contract (see id. ; American Recycling & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Kemp, 165 A.D.3d 1604, 1606, 85 N.Y.S.3d 651 [4th Dept. 2018] ; Aldridge v. Brodman, 100 A.D.3d 1537, 1539, 954 N.Y.S.2d 359 [4th Dept. 2012] ). In opposition, plaintiff failed to tender evidence raising a material question of fact whether defendant intended, by forwarding the email, to induce breach of the contract (see Alvord & Swift v. Muller Constr. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 276, 281–282, 413 N.Y.S.2d 309, 385 N.E.2d 1238 [1978] ; American Recycling & Mfg. Co., Inc., 165 A.D.3d at 1606, 85 N.Y.S.3d 651 ; Aldridge, 100 A.D.3d at 1539, 954 N.Y.S.2d 359 ).