This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P alleges that it had five-year exclusive service contracts with customers and that, knowing of these arrangements, D nonetheless induced dozens of P's customers to breach their contracts and enter into rental agreements with D. White Plains by letter demanded that D desist solicitation and discontinue servicing its contract customers, enclosing a list of customers allegedly solicited improperly. D denied knowledge of any contracts and continued its solicitation. P sued D. After discovery, D sought summary judgment, arguing that it had no knowledge of contracts with P and had not induced any breach. The District Court dismissed the complaint, in that D had the defense of economic justification. To overcome D's defense, P had to show that D acted with malice or illegality. P appealed. The court certified a question to the State Supreme Court. The Second Circuit sought clarification as to the broader reach of the defense and therefore certified the following potentially dispositive question to us: 'Does a generalized economic interest in soliciting business for profit constitute a defense to a claim of tortious interference with an existing contract for an alleged tortfeasor with no previous economic relationship with the breaching party?'

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.