Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

120 A.D.2d 933

Mansour v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1986-05-23

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[i]mproper interference with a contract terminable at will is actionable”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Europlast Limited v. Oak Switch Systems Incorporated

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-05-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2012

1 state decisions

501986199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1— Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term dismissed the complaint for failure to state any cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and dismissed the first four and part of the fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action on the further ground that they were time barred.

¶2Special Term erred with respect to five of the causes of action. "[A] complaint should not be dismissed on a pleading motion so long as, when the plaintiff is given the benefit of every possible favorable inference, a cause of action exists” (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634).

¶3Libel was sufficiently alleged in causes of action numbered five, six and seven; five and seven against the defendants generally, and six against defendants Marcus and Goldstock (see, 44 NY Jur 2d, Defamation and Privacy, § 158). Whether the claims have merit is not before us (see, Stukuls v State of New York, 42 NY2d 272). We do not read these causes of action as alleging publication on March 16, 1983, but, to the extent that such claim is made, we agree with Special Term that publication on that date would be time barred.

¶4The eighth cause of action alleges tortious interference by defendants Goldstock and Marcus with plaintiff’s employment *934contract, concededly terminable at will. Until it was terminated by the employer or the employee, both had an interest in it. Improper interference with a contract terminable at will is actionable (see, Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 NY2d 183, 190; Restatement [Second] of Torts § 766 comment g).

¶5The eleventh cause of action alleges that defendants discharged plaintiff from his employment in violation of his rights under the 1st Amendment and 42 USC § 1983. A constitutionally impermissible purpose or a statutory proscription limits an employer’s right to terminate an employment at will (Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 305).

¶6We have examined the remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, White, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman and Pine, JJ.

/120/ad2d/933 · .json · Public domain