Stuart'S v. Edelman

Stuart'S v. Edelman

Opinion

 [**474]   [*711]  DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with contract, the defendant Michael Hong appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Vito M. DeStefano, J.), entered August 22, 2018. The judgment, insofar appealed from, upon a decision of the same court dated April 9, 2018, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff Stuart's, LLC, and against the defendant Michael Hong in the principal sum of $1,436,128.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, (1) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff Stuart's, LLC, the principal sum of $543,689 against the defendant Michael Hong as damages for tortious interference with business relations, and substituting therefor a provision dismissing that cause of action  [*712]  insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Stuart's, LLC, against the defendant Michael Hong, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff Stuart's, [***2]  LLC, the principal sum of $719,064 against the defendant Michael Hong as damages for unfair competition, and substituting therefor a provision dismissing that cause  [**475]  of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Stuart's, LLC, against the defendant Michael Hong; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

This appeal arises from a dispute in connection with the alleged diversion of assets and business from one clothing and apparel distributor, the plaintiff Stuart's, LLC (hereinafter Stuart's), to another, the defendant Level 8 Apparel, LLC (hereinafter Level 8). Stuart's alleged, among other things, that the defendant Michael Hong was an employee of Stuart's until February 24, 2009, and was also a principal of Level 8, and that Hong, along with several other individual defendants, wrongfully diverted business and assets away from Stuart's to Level 8. Stuart's and its principal, Wayne Galvin, commenced this action against, among others, Hong. As relevant to this appeal, the tenth cause of action sought damages for tortious interference with contract, the twelfth cause of action sought damages for tortious interference with business [***3]  relations, and the thirteenth cause of action sought damages for unfair competition.

Following a nonjury trial, in a decision dated April 9, 2018, the Supreme Court, inter alia, found that all of the defendants had (1) tortiously interfered with a contract between Stuart's and nonparty Tumi, Inc. (hereinafter Tumi), damaging Stuart's in the amount of $173,375; (2) tortiously interfered with Stuart's business relationship with nonparty Aeropostale, Inc. (hereinafter Aeropostale), damaging Stuart's in the amount of $543,689; and (3) engaged in unfair competition with Stuart's, damaging Stuart's in the amount of $719,064. The court entered a judgment on  [****2]  August 22, 2018, inter alia, in favor of Stuart's and against Hong in those principal amounts. Hong appeals.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.