Majority
In an action to recover damages for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered May 1, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7) to dismiss the complaint.
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting
To establish a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, “a plaintiff must demonstrate that the alleged interferer used unlawful or improper means or that the interference by lawful means constituted the infliction of intentional harm done without excuse or justification” (Bogdan v Peekskill Community Hosp., 211 AD2d 692 , 693 [1995], citing Alexander & Alexander v Fritzen, 68 NY2d 968 , 969 [1986]; see also Datlow v Paleta Intl. Corp., 199 AD2d 362 [1993]). The complaint informed the defendants of the incidents complained of regarding the advertiser Phil Griffin and was pleaded in sufficient detail (see Lanzi v Brooks, 43 NY2d 778 , 780 [1977]).
Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed their claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage on the ground of res judicata insofar as it relates to advertisers other than Griffin (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353 , 357 [1981]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Alexander & Alexander of New York, Inc. v. Fritzen 68 NY2d 968 at 969 p. 790
- Datlow v. Paleta International Corp. 199 AD2d 362 p. 790
- Lanzi v. Brooks 43 NY2d 778 at 780 p. 790
- O'Brien v. City of Syracuse 54 NY2d 353 at 357 p. 790