You are here: / / ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED...
,

ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS; THE JURY AWARDED SEPARATE DAMAGE-AMOUNTS FOR EACH DEFENDANT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD BOTH DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants, one of which was found by the jury to have breached a contract, and the other which was found to have tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s prospective business relations, should not have been deemed jointly and severally liable. Each was separately liable for the separate damage-amounts assigned by the jury:

The jury determined that the plaintiff sustained damages in the amount of $60,000 resulting from [defendant] DIG’s interference with the plaintiff’s prospective business relationship with [defendant] B1 Advanced, and that the plaintiff sustained damages in the amount of $657,000 resulting from B1 Advanced’s breach of contract. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the damages arising out of DIG’s tortious interference could, in fact, differ from the damages arising out of B1 Advanced’s breach of contract. The jury assessed the amount of damages against DIG based on the plaintiff’s loss of prospective profits resulting from DIG’s tortious interference with the plaintiff’s ongoing business relationship with B1 Advanced … . Conversely, “[d]amages for breach of contract include general (or direct) damages, which compensate for the value of the promised performance, and consequential damages, which are indirect and compensate for additional losses incurred as a result of the breach, such as lost profits” … . The jury’s apportionment of damages reflects its finding that DIG was not responsible for all of the damages caused by B1 Advanced’s breach of contract. Achieve It Solutions, LLC v Lewis, 2020 NY Slip Op 04137, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

You might also like
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY.
INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO SATISFY JUDGMENT AGAINST ITS INSURED; INJURED PARTY FAILED TO TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF THE FIRE WHICH CAUSED THE DAMAGE.
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT MOVING TO SUPPRESS CREDIT CARDS SEIZED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WERE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE WARRANT; THE INCRIMINATING NATURE OF THE CREDIT CARDS WAS NOT IMMEDIATELEY APPARENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Even Though the Landlords Maintained Offices Adjacent to the Leased Property (a Restaurant), the Plaintiff Was Not Able to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether the Landlords Retained Control Over the Leased Premises Such that the Landlords Would Be Liable for an Assault by Employees and Patrons of the Tenant-Restaurant
Court’s Refusal to Allow Defendant to Inspect His Laptop Computer, Evidence from Which Was Central to the People’s Case, Was Reversible Error
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER IT PROPERLY EVALUATED THE TEACHER’S BACKGROUND BEFORE HIRING HER AND WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TEACHER’S ALLEGED ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE CAN PROPERLY AWARD COUNSEL FEES TO PETITIONER BASED UPON RESPONDENT’S VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION, A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE (SECOND DEPT).
“Special Relationship” Required Before Municipality Can Be Liable for Failure to Enforce Statute or Regulation

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

DEFENDANTS DID NOT REQUEST THAT PLAINTIFFS GRANT A LICENSE FOR EXCAVATION WORK... THE CITY NEED NOT PROVE THE POLICE CORROBORATED INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN INFORMANT...