You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, VERIZON, THREATENED LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, VERIZON, THREATENED LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON A NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF IF PLAINTIFF RESIGNED TO WORK FOR WARNERMEDIA; PLAINTIFF’S TORTIOUS-INTERFERENCE-WITH-PROSPECTIVE-BUSINESS-RELATIONS CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-employer (Verizon) was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the tortious-interference-with-prospective-business-relations cause of action. Plaintiff signed a non-compete agreement. When Verizon learned of plaintiff’s plan to resign and work for WarnerMedia Verizon warned plaintiff that resigning would lead to legal action:

Although plaintiff contends that Verizon wrongfully threatened litigation against him to enforce the noncompete provision, the “wrongful means” element of the cause of action is satisfied only where the threatened lawsuit is frivolous … . In light of the above facts, and considering that Verizon has successfully enforced a similar noncompete provision in the past … , there was an objectively reasonable basis to believe that the provision in its agreement with plaintiff was enforceable. …

Furthermore, the record does not support plaintiff’s argument that Verizon took its legal position solely out of a personal dislike for plaintiff, or solely by a desire to harm him … . On the contrary, the record shows that Verizon’s actions were motivated by economic self-interest … . Lucas v Verizon Communications, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05190, First Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: In order to support a tortious-interference-with-prospective-business-relations cause of action plaintiff must prove the employer’s threatened action was “wrongful” and was motivated solely by a desire to harm plaintiff. Here the employer threatened only to take legal action to enforce a non-compete agreement. The tortious-interference cause of action should have been dismissed.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT ADDRESS THE OPINION OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
WHEN DEFENDANT MADE STATEMENTS AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA WHICH RAISED A POSSIBLE INTOXICATION DEFENSE THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER; THE ISSUE NEEDN’T BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING ON WHETHER A TUMOR MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE BEFORE BIRTH.
One Year Statute of Limitations in Labor Law 740 Trumps the One-Year-Ninety-Days Statute of Limitations in General Municipal Law 50-e(5) (Incorporated Into the Health & Hospitals Corporation Act)
MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED, INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT).
AFTER PLEADING GUILTY IN FULL SATISFACTION OF THE CHARGES IN THE INDICTMENT, A SECOND PLEA TO ANOTHER COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT WAS PRECLUDED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT CANNOT APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING; HE MUST FIRST BE ADJUDICATED BY THE SORA COURT AND MAY SUBSEQUENTLY APPEAL REQUESTING AN ANNULMENT (FIRST 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

THE REPEAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-A, WHICH PROHIBITED ACCESS TO POLICE PERSONNEL... ALTHOUGH THE PARKING/STORAGE AREA WHERE CLAIMANT WAS INJURED WAS NOT ON THE...