ABSENT “WRONGFUL MEANS,” “MALICE,” AND/OR FRIVOLITY, CONDUCT WASN’T TORTIOUS
After Verizon’s motion to dismiss JL’s tortious interference claims was denied, the company appealed.
And on its review of the matter, the Appellate Division, First Department, noted that JL had knowingly signed the non-compete in exchange for some $2 million in unrestricted stock (which vested over three years), along with his annual salary and “various bonuses.”
When he later received an employment offer from Time Warner, Verizon warned JL that it considered that company a “competitor,” and that a move would subject him to litigation. After JL resigned, Time Warner demanded that any dispute with Verizon be resolved by a date certain, and when that deadline was missed, Time Warner’s employment offer was withdrawn.
Given that no “wrongful means” was utilized to interfere with JL’s business relationship, and in the absence of any “malice,” or “frivolous” conduct, the AD1 thought that Verizon’s motion should have been granted and ended up reversing the underlying determination.
According to the appellate court, rather than acting out of “personal dislike,” or desire to cause JL harm, the record reinforced that Verizon was solely “motivated by [its] economic self-interest.”
Where did the signals get crossed?
# # #
DECISION