You are here: / / Tortious Interference with Contract.
,

Tortious Interference with Contract.

In this case, the Third Department included a clear description of the proof requirements for tortious interference with contract.  Schmidt & Schmidt vs. Town of Charlton, 515053 Third Dept. 2-21-13

 

You might also like
TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER.
Instructor at Community College Entitled to Unemployment Benefits, No Reasonable Assurance of Continued Employment
Questions of Fact Whether Picnic Table Near the Edge of a Porch Was a Dangerous Condition and Whether the Condition Was Open and Obvious
EMPLOYER’S ANSWER TO A QUESTION ON ITS APPLICATION FOR A BOARD REVIEW OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S AWARD OF BENEFITS WAS ADEQUATE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF THE BOARD’S DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION; THE QUESTION CONCERNED WHEN THE EMPLOYER’S OBJECTION TO THE RULING WAS MADE (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE CONSULTANTS WHOSE REPORTS WERE THE BASIS FOR THE DENIAL OF CLAIMANT’S REQUEST FOR SURGERY (THIRD DEPT).
At Least Some of the Information In a Report Prepared for the Town by Outside Counsel May Be Subject to Disclosure Because the Attorney-Client Privilege Was Waived to the Extent the Contents of the Report Were Described at a Public Hearing
GROUNDANYWHERE DRIVERS, LIKE UBER DRIVERS, ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RADIATION ONCOLOGIST, THE SOLE SHAREHOLDER IN PLANTIFF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, WHICH PAID PLAINTIFF ONCOLOGIST’S SALARY, SUCCESSFULLY SUED THE HOSPITAL WHICH EMPLOYED HIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE COURT, IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, HELD THAT PLAINTIFF’S SALARY WAS NOT A CORPORATE EXPENSE AND THEREFORE WAS RECOVERABLE AS LOST PROFITS IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Order Not Appealable, Did Not Affect Substantial Right. Mistrial on Motion by Prosecution Precluded Retrial.