Under New York law, when a tortuous interference claim fails so does a derivative claim of conspiracy to interfere
The Appellate Division, Second Department recently established that when a claim for tortuous interference of contract fails based upon lack of factual support the derivative claim of conspiracy to interfere also must fail because under New York law the conspiracy to interfere claim is not a stand-alone claim. In Ferrandino & Son, Inc. v Wheaton Bldrs., Inc., LLC, the Second Department upheld the dismissal of the claims for tortuous interference and conspiracy to interfere.
There, plaintiff and defendant-general contractor Wheaton entered into a subcontract under which plaintiff agreed to install a concrete superstructure for a condominium complex located in Brooklyn. After Wheaton terminated the subcontract based upon plaintiff’s alleged poor performance, plaintiff commenced an action against the general contractor and the defendant project manager HE2 alleging that HE2 tortiously induced Wheaton to breach its subcontract with the plaintiff and that Wheaton and HE2 maliciously conspired together to interfere with and terminate the plaintiff's contract rights for their own benefit.
The Court established that to state a cause of action alleging tortious interference with contract, “the plaintiff must allege: the existence of a valid contract between it and a third party, the defendant's knowledge of that contract, the defendant's intentional procurement of the third party's breach of that contract without justification, and damages.” The plaintiff must specifically "allege that the contract would not have been breached but for the defendant's conduct"
While acknowledging the motion to dismiss standard requiring that a complaint be construed liberally, the Court ruled that “a plaintiff must support his claim with more than mere speculations.” The Court found that plaintiff “merely asserted, in a conclusory manner and without the support of relevant factual allegations, that HE2's actions caused Wheaton to breach the subcontract.” Also the Court ruled that plaintiff failed to “allege that, but for HE2's actions, Wheaton would have continued the subcontract.” Thus, the Court upheld the dismissal of the tortuous interference claim.
With the fall of the tortuous interference claim also fell the civil conspiracy claim. The Court ruled that “New York does not recognize civil conspiracy to commit a tort as an independent cause of action,” but rather, “the claim stands or falls with the underlying tort.” The Court ruled as the civil conspiracy claim was derivative of the underlying tort of tortious interference, that claim was also properly dismissed.
