Majority
Plaintiff, a bankrupt glass manufacturer based in Mexico, seeks to hold defendants liable for damages allegedly incurred in connection with statements published in a press release issued in advance of plaintiffs public launch of a proposed reorganization plan. The motion court properly dismissed the breach of contract claim against the non-signatory defendants because in the absence of a contract, there could be no breach (see Pevensey Press v Prentice-Hall, Inc., 161 AD2d 500 , 501 [1st Dept 1990]). Plaintiff also failed to state a claim for breach of contract against the sole signatory defendant, Lord, Abbett &
In the absence of any tortious conduct, the element of “wrongful means,” necessary to support a claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, is lacking (see NBT Bancorp v Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 87 NY2d 614 [1996]; Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 NY2d 183 [1980]). Plaintiff also failed to establish malice as the sole motive for defendants’ actions. As creditors, defendants have a clear economic interest in this matter, separate from any possible malicious motive (see Advanced Global Tech., LLC v Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc., 44 AD3d 317 [1st Dept 2007]).
We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.
Cases cited
- Pevensey Press, Ltd. v. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 161 AD2d 500 at 501 p. 564
- Kidd v. Epstein 79 AD3d 650 p. 565
- NBT Bancorp Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Financial Group, Inc. 87 NY2d 614 p. 565
- Guard-Life Corp. v. S. Parker Hardware Manufacturing Corp. 50 NY2d 183 p. 565
- Advanced Global Technology, LLC v. Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. 44 AD3d 317 p. 565