White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v. Cintas Corp. And Cintas Corp. 2, Docket No. 05-1520-Cv

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that in New York, “the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply” (quotation omitted)
• noting that New Jersey law “require[s] proof that the defendant acted maliciously, while New York only requires proof of malice if the economic interest defense has been triggered,”
• noting the importance of the location of the victims of the tort and the law that governs the contract
• applying New York law over that of New Jersey and Connecticut because “twenty-eight of the thirty-five customers involved are located in New York.”
• “If conflicting conduct-regulating laws are at issue, the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply because that jurisdiction has the greatest interest in regulating behavior within its borders.” (internal quotation marks omitted
• “Under New York law, however, a plaintiff need only specifically plead the existence of a valid contract and provide some details about its terms and its breach to sustain a tortious interference with contract claim at the motion to dismiss stage.” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).