| Micro Tech. Intl., Inc. v Artech Info. Sys., LLC |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03875 [62 AD3d 764] |
| May 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Micro Technology International, Inc., Appellant, v ArtechInformation Systems, LLC, et al., Defendants, and International Business Machines Corporation,Respondent. |
—[*1] Short & Billy, PC, New York, N.Y. (Skip Short and Conrad O'Brien, P.C. [Robert N.Feltoon and Ali Weinberg], of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with contract, theplaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated June3, 2008, which granted the renewed motion of the defendant International Business MachinesCorporation pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted againstit.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the renewed motion of thedefendant International Business Machines Corporation pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) todismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it is denied.
In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court should, amongother things, "determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory"(Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). Here, the facts as alleged by the plaintiffin support of the cause of action asserted against the defendant International Business MachinesCorporation (hereinafter IBM) fit within a cognizable theory. The plaintiff made sufficientfactual allegations to state a cause of action against IBM to recover damages for tortiousinterference with contract (see WhitePlains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v Cintas Corp., 8 NY3d 422, 426 [2007]; Kronos,Inc. v AVX Corp., 81 NY2d 90, 94 [1993]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should havedenied IBM's renewed motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar asasserted against it. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.