Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Andrew Greenberg, Inc. v. Sir-Tech Software, Inc.
Citations: 245 A.D.2d 1004; 667 N.Y.S.2d 83
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 30, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made against an order from the Supreme Court in Sullivan County, which granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint in action No. 2. Andrew Greenberg, Inc. (AGI) licensed Sir-Tech Software, Inc. the exclusive rights to manufacture and market the computer game "Wizardry" in 1981, with provisions for royalties and copyright recognition. Game designer David W. Bradley developed subsequent "Wizardry" games under this agreement. AGI filed a lawsuit against Sir-Tech and Bradley in 1991 for trademark and copyright infringement, leading to the dismissal of several claims by the U.S. District Court. A stipulation resulted in the dismissal of AGI’s claims against Bradley. In 1992, Sir-Tech initiated action No. 2, alleging that AGI and others tortiously interfered with Bradley's contract, claiming he was unable to deliver the "Crusaders" game on time due to AGI's actions, resulting in financial losses for Sir-Tech. After extensive discovery, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Sir-Tech's appeal was affirmed, as it failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its tortious interference claims, including the existence of a contract, defendants’ knowledge of it, the contract's non-performance, intent to induce a breach, causation, and resultant damages. Sir-Tech did not adequately establish critical elements in its case, including the defendants' knowledge of the contract and malicious intent in initiating the Federal court action. Sir-Tech claimed that its inability to fully establish these elements was due to the defendants' refusal to answer deposition questions and interrogatories, with a motion to compel pending at the time of the ruling. However, the court found that Sir-Tech's evidentiary showing was insufficient, particularly regarding causation. Sir-Tech failed to provide admissible evidence proving that the Federal court action interfered with Bradley’s contractual performance on the "Crusaders" project. There was no affidavit or testimony from Bradley indicating that his work was hindered by the litigation. A letter from Sir-Tech’s counsel mentioning incurred expenses was deemed irrelevant, as was Bradley’s unsubstantiated assertion regarding harassment. Additionally, communications dated from August 1991 to August 1992 showed that Bradley's delays were likely due to project complexity and other factors, rather than the Federal litigation, which he did not mention. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendants' actions did not impede Bradley’s performance. Remaining arguments by the parties were either deemed irrelevant or lacking merit. The order was affirmed with costs.