| Algomod Tech. Corp. v Price |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06727 [65 AD3d 974] |
| September 29, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Algomod Technologies Corp., Appellant, v Kevin Price etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York (Matthew Dexter of counsel), for respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered June 19,2008, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered June 18,2008, which, in an action by a seller of information technology consulting services against twoemployees of one of its customers (Verizon) for, inter alia, tortious interference with prospectivebusiness relations, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed,with costs.
With respect to the cause of action for tortious interference with prospective businessrelations, the complaint fails to correct the deficiencies in plaintiff's prior complaint, which wasdismissed for failure to plead the elements of that cause of action in a nonconclusory manner,and therefore was properly dismissed as precluded by the prior dismissal (see 175 E. 74thCorp. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 51 NY2d 585, 590 n 1 [1980]). While the complaintcontains additional allegations concerning defendants' purported role in the downgrading ofplaintiff's vendor status with Verizon, it fails to plead, in nonconclusory language (seeBonanni v Straight Arrow Publs., 133 AD2d 585, 586-587 [1987]), that defendants' actswere accompanied by the use of wrongful means (see NBT Bancorp v Fleet/Norstar Fin.Group, 87 NY2d 614, 621 [1996]), and that but for such acts plaintiff would have enteredinto new relationships with Verizon (see Vigoda v DCA Prods. Plus, 293 AD2d 265[2002]). The complaint also fails to set forth facts showing that defendants acted for personalinterests rather than those of Verizon (see Joan Hansen & Co. v Everlast World's BoxingHeadquarters Corp., 296 AD2d 103, 110 [2002]). Plaintiff's cause of action for conversion,which alleges that a competitor, aided by defendants, hacked into Verizon's procurement Website and stole plaintiff's proprietary information, was properly dismissed for lack ofnonconclusory allegations showing that the alleged hacking occurred or, if it did, that plaintiff'sproprietary information was compromised. In the absence of [*2]any viable causes of action, the conspiracy claims cannot stand asan independent tort (see Jebran vLaSalle Bus. Credit, LLC, 33 AD3d 424, 425 [2006]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P.,Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.