BRADBURY v. Luis “Berto” Antunano, Defendant. (2022)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa Anne Crane, J.), entered June 22, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from, (1) granted the motion of defendant Marc Israel to dismiss the individual claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment asserted against him, (2) granted the motion of defendants MiT Land Services LLC (MiT) and Newmark Partners L.P. (Newmark) to dismiss the claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference with contract and/or tortious interference with prospective business relations asserted against them, and (3) denied Israel's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim asserted against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied dismissal of the first cause of action, for breach of contract against Israel.  There were at least questions of fact surrounding whether the parties had entered into a joint venture, given the creation of the LLC, the parties’ longstanding business relationship, and the uncontested payments from Israel to Bradbury.  This case is distinguishable from (Aksman v. Xiongwei Ju, 21 A.D.3d 260, 260–261, 799 N.Y.S.2d 493 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 715, 807 N.Y.S.2d 16, 840 N.E.2d 1030 [2005]) in light of the parties’ course of conduct in forming the LLC and working together over the course of several years.  A November 2013 email from Israel to Bradbury also raises issues of fact as to whether the parties agreed to share losses equally (Slabakis v. Schik, 164 A.D.3d 454, 455, 84 N.Y.S.3d 45 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 912, 2018 WL 6542732 [2018]).

The court properly dismissed the cause of action for tortious interference with contract.  “It is well established that only a stranger to a contract, such as a third party, can be liable for tortious interference with a contract” (Koret, Inc. v. Christian Dior, S.A., 161 A.D.2d 156, 157, 554 N.Y.S.2d 867 [1st Dept. 1990], lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 714, 564 N.Y.S.2d 718, 565 N.E.2d 1269 [1990];  see also Ashby v. ALM Media, LLC, 110 A.D.3d 459, 459, 973 N.Y.S.2d 109 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 860, 2014 WL 223706 [2014]).  Given that Israel was the sole owner and operator of MiT, and MiT could only act upon Israel's direction, MiT was also not a stranger to the contract.

The court also properly dismissed the tortious interference with prospective business relations claim.  To support such a claim, it must be alleged that defendant's conduct was motivated solely by malice or to inflict injury by unlawful means going beyond mere self-interest or other economic considerations (Shared Communications Servs. of ESR, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 23 A.D.3d 162, 163, 803 N.Y.S.2d 512 [1st Dept. 2005]).  Further, any conduct constituting “wrongful means” must be directed at the third parties with whom plaintiff sought to have the relationship (Rockwell Global Capital, LLC v. Soreide Law Group, PLLC, 100 A.D.3d 448, 449, 954 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1st Dept. 2012]).  There are no such allegations in the second amended complaint.

In addition, the court properly dismissed the individual claim for breach of fiduciary duty asserted against Israel.  The court properly relied on Yudell v. Gilbert, 99 A.D.3d 108, 115, 949 N.Y.S.2d 380 (1st Dept. 2012) in finding that the claim was derivative in nature as it seeks damages allegedly suffered by JBMI, and that the direct claims asserted were embedded in the derivative claims.  It is well settled that a shareholder of a corporation lacks standing to pursue a direct claim to redress wrongs suffered by a corporation (Sajust, LLC v. Mendelow, 198 A.D.3d 582, 582–583, 152 N.Y.S.3d 905 [1st Dept. 2021]).

Finally, the court properly dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as asserted against Israel, MiT, and Newmark.  Any unjust enrichment or benefit from the alleged use by defendants of plaintiffs’ property was at the expense of JBMI, not Bradbury (id.).  The unjust enrichment claim as asserted against Newmark also fails because its relationship with plaintiffs was “too attenuated” to support this claim (Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 182, 919 N.Y.S.2d 465, 944 N.E.2d 1104 [2011]).  Indeed, plaintiffs’ counsel admitted on the record that the parties had no relationship at all.  Nor is there anything to suggest that it would be “against equity and good conscience” to allow Newmark to retain the benefits of its acquisition of MiT (Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v. Rieder, 19 N.Y.3d 511, 516, 950 N.Y.S.2d 333, 973 N.E.2d 743 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).