[*1]
Scarola v Lehrer
2008 NY Slip Op 50429(U) [18 Misc 3d 141(A)]
Decided on March 6, 2008
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on March 6, 2008
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: DAVIS, J.P., SCHOENFELD, HEITLER, JJ

570554/07.

Richard J.J. Scarola, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Sander Lehrer and Reavis Parent Lehrer, LLP, Defendants-Respondents. Sander Lehrer and Reavis Parent Lehrer, LLP, Third-Party Plaintiffs, Scarola Ellis LLP and Scarola Reavis Parent, LLP, Third-Party Defendants.


Plaintiff, as limited by his brief, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered May 25, 2007, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants' counterclaims.


PER CURIAM:

Order (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered May 25, 2007, reversed, with $10 costs, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims is granted.

Defendants' counterclaim for tortious interference with contract should have been dismissed. A claim of tortious interference does not lie since plaintiff was a signatory to the 2002 partnership agreement here at issue, and "only a stranger to a contract, such as a third party, can be held liable for tortious interference with a contract" (Widewaters Prop. Dev. Co. v Katz, 38 AD3d 1220, 1222 [2007], citing Koret, Inc. v Christian Dior, S.A., 167 AD2d 156, 157 [1990], lv [*2]denied 76 NY2d 714 [1990]). Nor is a triable issue raised with respect to defendants' counterclaim for prima facie tort, since defendants failed to demonstrate that they had sustained special damages and/or that plaintiff's sole motive was disinterested malevolence (see Spinale v 10 W. 66th St. Corp., 291 AD2d 234, 235 [2002]; Bainton v Baran, 287 AD2d 317, 318 [2001]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: March 6, 2008