| Lion's Prop. Dev. Group LLC v New York City Regional Ctr.,LLC |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01554 [115 AD3d 488] |
| March 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Lion's Property Development Group LLC,Appellant, v New York City Regional Center, LLC, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] D'Agostino, Levine, Landesman & Lederman, LLP, New York (Bruce H. Ledermanof counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), enteredMarch 19, 2013, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its cause ofaction for breach of contract, and granted defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint as against defendant Hoche Partners Capital LLC and so muchof the motion as sought to dismiss the causes of action for breach of contract, tortiousinterference with contract with the licensed Chinese immigration companies (LCICs)other than Henry Global Consulting Group, tortious interference with prospectivebusiness advantage, breach of confidence, trade defamation, and unjust enrichment asagainst the remaining defendants, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The causes of action relating to plaintiff's claims that it was due commissions forcertain referrals it made to defendant New York City Regional Center, LLC (NYCRC)should be dismissed because, under the parties' agreement, plaintiff was to becompensated for referrals of potential investors, not representatives of potentialinvestors, namely, the LCICs. Plaintiff was not due a commission for the referral of theindividual investors, since they were referred to NYCRC not by plaintiff but by theLCICs accepted by NYCRC.
Plaintiff's related claims, including the claim that defendants tortiously interferedwith contracts between plaintiff and three of the LCICs, should be dismissed because therecord demonstrates that plaintiff did not have enforceable agreements with those LCICs.The record shows that defendants' alleged interference with plaintiff's prospectivebusiness advantage was neither wrongful nor motivated solely by malice, as opposed tonormal economic interest (seeCarvel Corp. v Noonan, 3 NY3d 182, 190 [2004]). In opposition to defendants'motion, plaintiff failed to raise triable issues as to its unjust enrichment claim and itsclaims against Hoche. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse,Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2013 NY Slip Op33374(U).]