AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

GILBERT VELAZQUEZ, Respondent-Appellant, v. LACKMANN FOOD SERVICES AT OLD COUNTRY ROAD, INC., Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the motion of Lackmann Food Services at Old Country Road, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was to dismiss the third, fourth, and fifth counterclaims are granted, the complaint and the third, fourth, and fifth counterclaims are dismissed, and the remaining counterclaim is severed;

The plaintiff's employment contract with the defendant Lackmann Food Services at Old Country Road, Inc. (hereinafter Lackmann Food), provided that if he remained "in the employ of the Company until December 1, 1995, the Company shall pay" him a "salary deferred incentive". The plaintiff alleges that he "continued to work * * * in various capacities" for Lackmann. Food until August 1996 and that he is entitled to a "salary deferred incentive" of $1,000,000.

In its motion for summary judgment, Lackmann Food submitted evidence establishing that the plaintiffs employment relationship with it terminated in 1993 ( see, Scott v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 429, 433; Matter of Ted Is Back Corp. [Roberts], 64 N.Y.2d 725). Because the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard, the Supreme Court should have granted Lackmann Food's application for summary judgment (see, Scott v. Massachusetts Mitt. Life Ins. Co., supra, at 434; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).

The court also erred in refusing to dismiss Lackmann Food's third, fourth, and fifth counterclaims, which alleged tortious interference with contractual relations. Lackmann Food did not allege that the plaintiff intentionally procured the breach of any contract, that any contract was in fact breached, or that the contract would not have been breached but for the plaintiff's conduct (see, Schuckman Realty v. Marine Midland Bank, 244 A.D.2d 400; see also, Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413, 424-425).

Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

VELAZQUEZ v. LACKMANN FOOD SERVICES
(Jun 15, 1998)