Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage as a Cause of Action in New York

New York law recognizes a cause of action known as tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, which protects a person or business from wrongful conduct that disrupts a likely financial opportunity. Unlike claims that rely on existing contracts, this cause of action is about stopping someone from interfering with business opportunities that have not yet been finalized but are reasonably expected to happen. It is a narrow and demanding claim that requires proof of both intentional and wrongful behavior.

Defendant Acted Through Wrongful Means or Solely to Harm the Plaintiff

To prove this claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s interference was not just intentional, but also wrongful. This means that the defendant used conduct that was criminal, independently tortious, or so dishonest and unfair that it cannot be justified under normal standards of behavior. Alternatively, if the defendant’s only motive was to harm the plaintiff, and not to benefit themselves in any way, that can also satisfy this element.

Mere competition, even aggressive competition, is not enough. The plaintiff must point to specific conduct that crosses the line into improper interference. This could include threats, deception, or other forms of bad-faith behavior that would be recognized as wrongful by the court.

Plaintiff Would Have Entered Into the Relationship but for Defendant’s Conduct

The second element requires the plaintiff to show that they had a real chance of entering into a valuable economic relationship, and that this opportunity was lost directly because of the defendant’s interference. It is not enough to say that someone disrupted a general business plan. The plaintiff must show that a specific opportunity—such as a pending deal, a likely sale, or a developing relationship—was on track to succeed until the defendant interfered.

There must be a clear link between the defendant’s wrongful actions and the missed opportunity. Speculative or vague claims about future success are not enough.

Defendant Knew About the Prospective Relationship

Although not always stated directly, New York courts consider the defendant’s knowledge of the plaintiff’s economic opportunity to be part of this cause of action. The defendant must have known, or should have known, that the plaintiff had a realistic chance at forming a business relationship. Without this knowledge, the defendant cannot be said to have intentionally interfered with it.

Conclusion

Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage is designed to protect future business opportunities from being sabotaged by wrongful or malicious conduct. To succeed, a plaintiff must show that the defendant knew about the opportunity, acted wrongfully or solely to cause harm, and directly caused the opportunity to be lost. The law sets a high bar, focusing not on ordinary competition but on conduct that clearly violates the boundaries of fair business practice.

Find the Law

“The elements of tortuous interference with prospective economic advantage are some what different. ‘A plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s interference with its prospective business relations was accomplished by ‘wrongful means’ or that defendant acted for the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff.’ Snyder v Sony Music Entertainment Inc, 252 A.D.2d 294, 299-300 (1st Dept 1999). It requires an allegation that the ‘plaintiff’ would have entered into an economic relationship but for the defendant’s wrongful conduct.’ Vagoda v DCA Productions Plus, Inc., 293 A.D.2d 265, 266 (1st Dept 2002). Knowledge of the prospective economic relation is an implicit element of relation. Caper v Nussbaum, 36 A.D.3d 176, 204 (2nd Dept 2006).” CTY. OF NASSAU v. 100 BLACK MEN OF LONG ISLAND DEV. GR., 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 30751, 5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)