Barns & Farms Realty, LLC v. Novelli
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Arvanitakis v. Lester (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Weiss v. Bretton Woods Condominium (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Commercial Realty Servs. of Long Is., Inc. v. Mehran Enters., Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Lee Dodge, Inc. v. Sovereign Bank, N.A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Williams v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Ahluwalia v. St. George's University, LLC (District Court, E.D. New York 2014)
- Yong Ki Hong v. KBS America, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2013)
- Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Scialpi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Kapsis v. Peragine (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Kapsis v. Peragine (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Grossman v. New York Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff moved for leave to enter a judgment against Novelli and Bouchard upon their default in appearing or answering the complaint. KHH, Smullyan, and Kinsey moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted the motion of KHH, Smullyan, and Kinsey.
Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly declined to enter a default judgment against Novelli and Bouchard (see Parrotta v Wolgin, 245 AD2d 872, 873 [1997]; Meyer v A & B Am., 160 AD2d 688 [1990]; General Elec. Credit Corp. v Zemrus, 115 AD2d 953 [1985]; Cohen v Ryan, 34 AD2d 789, 790 [1970]).
“[T]o succeed on a cause of action alleging tortious interference with an existing contract, the plaintiff must establish: (1) the existence of a valid contract between it and a third party, (2) the defendants’ knowledge of that contract, (3) the defendants’ intentional procurement of the third party’s breach of that contract without justification, and (4) damages” (Pink v Half Moon Coop. Apts., S., Inc., 68 AD3d 739, 740 [2009]; see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]; Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 749-750 [1996]). Here, the evidence
New York does not recognize civil conspiracy to commit a tort as an independent cause of action (see Hebrew Inst. for Deaf & Exceptional Children v Kahana, 57 AD3d 734, 735 [2008]; Salvatore v Kumar, 45 AD3d 560, 563 [2007]; Sokol v Addison, 293 AD2d 600, 601 [2002]). Accordingly, a cause of action alleging conspiracy to commit a tort stands or falls with the underlying tort (see Hebrew Inst. for Deaf & Exceptional Children v Kahana, 57 AD3d at 735; Salvatore v Kumar, 45 AD3d at 563-564; Sokol v Addison, 293 AD2d at 601). Here, since no separate cause of action alleging fraud was asserted against KHH, Smullyan, and Kinsey, the cause of action alleging fraudulent conspiracy was properly dismissed. To the extent the fourth cause of action may be construed to assert a cause of action alleging fraud, it was properly dismissed insofar as asserted against KHH, Smullyan, and Kinsey, since it did not allege the essential elements of a fraud claim (see generally Barclay Arms v Barclay Arms Assoc., 74 NY2d 644, 646-647 [1989]).
The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.
We decline the request of KHH, Smullyan, and Kinsey for the imposition of a sanction against the plaintiff based upon allegedly frivolous conduct on this appeal (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a], [c]). Prudenti, EJ., Mastro, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.