| Phillips v Carter |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00261 [58 AD3d 528] |
| January 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| John Phillips, Appellant, v Katharine T. Carter,Respondent. |
—[*1] Amos Weinberg, Great Neck, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered January 2,2008, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimouslyaffirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff's claim of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage is insufficientas a matter of law because the allegations in the amended complaint fail to establish thatdefendant acted solely to harm plaintiff by unlawful means beyond mere self-interest or othereconomic considerations (Carvel Corp.v Noonan, 3 NY3d 182 [2004]; Jacobs v Continuum Health Partners, 7 AD3d 312 [2004]). Theallegations in the amended complaint clearly establish that plaintiff had a fee dispute withdefendant, and that defendant was advancing her own self-interest in urging a third party,described in the complaint as an "occasional associate" of defendant, not to conduct businesswith plaintiff until the fee dispute was resolved.
Nor does the amended complaint allege facts showing that defendant's conduct wasotherwise unlawful (cf. Carvel Corp., 3 NY3d at 189). While the complaint allegesdefendant falsely told the third party that plaintiff had breached his contract and "could not betrusted as a contract partner," it fails to state a claim for defamation, the only possible tort on thefacts alleged. The factual allegations demonstrate that defendant's statements were either true orunactionable opinion (see Manfredoniav Weiss, 37 AD3d 286 [2007]; Silverman v Clark, 35 AD3d 1, 12-13 [2006]).Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.