JOHNSON v. BOTCHMAN

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the allegations in her complaint do not establish that the circumstances under which her employment was terminated constitute a violation of Penal Law § 215.10, 215.14 Penal, or 215.45 by her employer, the defendant Gary Botchman. Accordingly, the issue of whether any of these statutes create an implied private right of action is academic, and her first cause of action against Botchman was properly dismissed.

The complaint fails to state a cause of action against the defendants William Stephens and Equity Stars, Inc., for interference with a business relationship. The plaintiff did not make the required showing that these defendants interfered with her relationship with her employer "either with the sole purpose of harming [her] or by means that were unlawful or improper" ( 71 Pierrepont Assocs. v. 71 Pierrepont Corp., 243 A.D.2d 625; see, Nassau Diagnostic Imaging Radiation Oncology Assocs. v. Winthrop-University Hosp., 197 A.D.2d 563; WFB Telecommunications v. NYNEX Corp., 188 A.D.2d 257; cf., Herlihy v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 214 A.D.2d 250). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

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