Plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with contract was properly dismissed since her pleading does not contain the requisite allegations that defendant-respondent intentionally procured an actual breach by the contracting party ( see, Downtown Women's Ctr. v. Carron, 237 A.D.2d 209, 210), and that she did so without economic justification ( see, WMW Mach. Co. v. Koerber AG., 240 A.D.2d 400, 401). Plaintiff's fraud claim was also properly found to have been facially deficient, since plaintiff did not plead that defendant-respondent had a duty to disclose the allegedly withheld information based on a contractual or confidential relationship ( see, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Joshi, 202 A.D.2d 318), and did not plead other elements of the alleged fraud with sufficient particularity ( see, CPLR 3016 N.Y.C.P.L.R.). Nor did plaintiff state any cause of action for breach of an implied obligation of good faith. Although such an obligation may arise and be enforced as an implied term of a contract ( see, New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308, 318-319), there was no contract between plaintiff and defendant-respondent.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Saxe, JJ.