Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
NEW STADIUM LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENPOINT-GOLDMAN CORP., Defendant-Respondent.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 7, 2006, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, deemed to be an appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered December 8, 2006, (CPLR 5501[c] ), said judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and vacated, the first and second causes of action reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
The court properly dismissed the third and fourth causes of action for breach of contract and specific performance, inasmuch as plaintiff failed to establish that it was an intended, rather than an incidental, beneficiary under the lease whose provisions it sought to enforce (see Alicea v. City of New York, 145 A.D.2d 315, 534 N.Y.S.2d 983 [1988] ). With respect to the first cause of action, plaintiff adequately pleaded tortious interference with contract arising from defendant lessor's refusal to comply with its contractual obligation to consent to an assignment of the lease under the circumstances herein, thus making it impossible for the lessee to perform under its contract to assign the premises to plaintiff (Kravtsov v. Thwaites Terrace House Owners Corp., 267 A.D.2d 154, 155, 700 N.Y.S.2d 177 [1999]; cf. Maruki, Inc. v. Lefrak Fifth Ave. Corp., 161 A.D.2d 264, 268, 555 N.Y.S.2d 293 [1990] ). We further find that plaintiff's allegation that defendant withheld consent to the assignment for the wrongful and illegal purposes of extorting a $9 million consent fee was sufficient to plead a cause of action for tortious interference with business relations, and reinstate the second cause of action on that basis, as well as on the ground that defendant's action may amount to the sort of extreme and unfair economic pressure considered wrongful under Guard-Life Corp. v. Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 N.Y.2d 183, 428 N.Y.S.2d 628, 406 N.E.2d 445 [1980]; cf. Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 3 N.Y.3d 182, 191-193, 785 N.Y.S.2d 359, 818 N.E.2d 1100 [2004].
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 16, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)