Norwood Easthill Assoc. v. NE WATCH

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting plaintiffs claim that despite “inability to prove actual damages, it should be allowed to obtain punitive damages” under Nappe, because plaintiff had not shown “any injury, loss, or detriment reasonably attributable to defendants’ alleged malicious interference”
• post-Nappe Appellate Division case holding that requirement of proving damages is still element of malicious interference
• post-Nappe Appellate Division case holding that requirement of proving damages is still element of malicious interference
• discussing proximate cause with reference to consequential damages
• discussing proximate cause with reference to consequential damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).