Justice Carolyn Demarest
Defendants moved to dismiss this action arguing it was barred by collateral estoppel, among other things. Buyer Revital Realty sued defendants seeking damages arising from tortious interference by defendants regarding the sale of real property. It claimed they deliberately interfered with a valid contract for sale between Revital and seller Ulano Corp. Revital alleged defendants denied Revital’s real estate broker access to the premises, which defendants claimed was because the agent was offering to show the property to potential renters before closing without seller’s or defendants’ permission. At a framed-issue trial, the court found seller’s denial of access to the property constituted a breach of contract entitling Revital to recover its deposit, but also ruled that while seller breached the contract, Revital was not ready, willing or able to close on the operative closing date thus was not entitled to specific performance or recovery of any losses beyond its deposit. The court stated defendants established that the factual predicate for Revital’s tortious interference claim was previously litigated, hence, the issue here was the same as the issue adjudicated against Revital in a prior action and barred by collateral estoppel, granting defendant dismissal.
