ALEXANDER ALEXANDER OF NEW YORK, INC. v. FRITZEN, N.Y., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Michael D. Brown for appellant. Spiros A. Tsimbinos and Joseph Filardi for respondent.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a motion by defendant James W. Barber to dismiss or obtain summary judgment on certain causes of action brought by plaintiff Alexander Alexander of New York, Inc. The contested claims relate to allegations of conspiracy to divert business opportunities and interference with a claimed contractual relationship involving defendants Fritzen and Bikoff. The case reached the Court of Appeals of the State of New York following an appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the first cause of action against defendant Barber for conspiracy to divert business opportunities states a valid cause of action.
Whether the fifth cause of action against Barber for interference with plaintiff's claimed contract relationship with defendants Fritzen and Bikoff is actionable.
Whether defendant Barber is entitled to dismissal or summary judgment under CPLR 3211 or CPLR 3212 on these causes of action.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Brackett v Griswold, 112 N.Y. 454, 467	A mere conspiracy to commit a tort is never of itself a cause of action; conspiracy allegations must connect separate defendants' actions to an otherwise actionable tort.	The court held the first cause of action insufficient because it alleged only a conspiracy without an underlying actionable tort.
Green v Davies, 182 N.Y. 499	Supports the principle that conspiracy alone does not constitute a cause of action.	Reinforced the court's view that conspiracy allegations require an actionable tort.
Manning v Beck, 129 N.Y. 1, 11	Same as above regarding conspiracy claims.	Affirmed the insufficiency of conspiracy allegations standing alone.
Manning v Turtel, 115 A.D.2d 712	Conspiracy allegations must connect to an actionable tort.	Applied to dismiss the conspiracy claim lacking an underlying tort.
Danahy v Meese, 84 A.D.2d 670, 672	Conspiracy allegations are permissible only to connect defendants’ actions to an actionable tort.	Supported the court’s rejection of the conspiracy claim as insufficient.
Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 N.Y.2d 183	To state a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage, the defendant must have used improper means or acted solely to injure the plaintiff.	The court found the complaint insufficient because it lacked allegations that Barber used improper means or acted solely to injure plaintiff.
Brause v First Natl. Real Estate Trust, 26 N.Y.2d 737; aff’g 25 A.D.2d 624	Similar principle on interference with prospective economic advantage requiring improper means or sole purpose to injure.	Applied to dismiss the interference claim for failure to allege improper means or sole intent to injure.
Union Car Adv. v Collier, 263 N.Y. 386	Supports the standard for interference with prospective economic advantage claims.	Reinforced the dismissal of the first cause of action on these grounds.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the first cause of action alleging conspiracy to divert business opportunities and found it legally deficient. It reiterated established precedent that a conspiracy claim alone, without an underlying actionable tort, is insufficient to state a cause of action. The complaint’s allegations did not include any improper means or sole intent to injure by defendant Barber, which are necessary elements for a claim of interference with prospective economic advantage. Consequently, the court concluded no cause of action was stated and granted summary judgment to Barber on this claim.

Regarding the fifth cause of action for interference with a claimed contract relationship, the court noted that although the complaint alleged an explicit agency agreement involving defendants Fritzen and Bikoff, the plaintiff’s own submissions contradicted this claim. Instead, the plaintiff’s claim was based on a fiduciary duty allegedly owed by Fritzen and Bikoff as employees of a related corporation. The court held that plaintiff lacked standing to sue for tortious interference with the employment relationship of these defendants, affirming the dismissal of this cause of action.

Holding and Implications

The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, with costs.

The court’s decision results in the dismissal of the first and fifth causes of action against defendant Barber. The ruling confirms the principle that conspiracy claims must be connected to an underlying actionable tort and that interference claims require proper standing and factual allegations of improper means or sole injurious intent. No new legal precedent was established; the decision applies existing law to the facts presented, terminating plaintiff’s claims against Barber on these grounds.

Show full summary ...

ALEXANDER ALEXANDER OF NEW YORK, INC., Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. HARRY W. FRITZEN, JR., et al., Defendants, and JAMES W. BARBER, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

This appeal, as limited by plaintiff's brief, relates only to the first cause of action against defendant Barber for conspiracy to divert business opportunities, and to the fifth cause of action against Barber for interference with plaintiff's claimed contract relationship with defendants Fritzen and Bikoff. It arises out of defendant Barber's motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under CPLR 3212. We conclude that defendant Barber is entitled to summary judgment as to the first cause of action, notwithstanding that there is no affidavit from a person with knowledge of the facts, because no cause of action is stated.

The allegations of the first cause of action are not sufficient. It purports to allege a conspiracy but, as we long ago held, "a mere conspiracy to commit a [tort] is never of itself a cause of action" (Brackett v Griswold, 112 N.Y. 454, 467; accord, Green v Davies, 182 N.Y. 499; Manning v Beck, 129 N.Y. 1, 11; Manning v Turtel, 115 A.D.2d 712). Allegations of conspiracy are permitted only to connect the actions of separate defendants with an otherwise actionable tort (Brackett v Griswold, supra; Danahy v Meese, 84 A.D.2d 670, 672). The claimed diversion of business opportunities if regarded as a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage is, however, insufficient because, although it alleges some 25 "overt acts," it contains no allegation that Barber used improper means or acted solely for the purpose of injuring plaintiff Alexander Alexander (hereafter A A) (Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 N.Y.2d 183; Brause v First Natl. Real Estate Trust, 26 N.Y.2d 737, affg 25 A.D.2d 624; Union Car Adv. v Collier, 263 N.Y. 386; see, 2 N.Y. PJI 200 [1986 Supp]).

The fifth cause of action should also be dismissed. Although paragraph 54 of the complaint alleges an explicit agreement on the part of Fritzen and Bikoff to act as agents of both Albert G. Ruben, Inc. (hereafter AGR) and A A, plaintiff's briefs before us, as well as the affidavit of its officer submitted in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, contradict the claim of an explicit relationship and make clear that plaintiff's claim is based solely upon the contention that as employees of AGR Fritzen and Bikoff owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiff, a related corporation of AGR. Plaintiff is, therefore, as the Appellate Division held, without standing to sue for tortious interference with the employment relationship of Fritzen and Bikoff.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE and HANCOCK, JR., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

ALEXANDER ALEXANDER OF NEW YORK, INC. v. FRITZEN