The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 56, 57, 58, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted with regards to Plaintiffs’ causes of action one, two, five, six, and seven, and denied as to the remaining counts. The present action arises out of Defendant MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ENTERTAINMENT CORP.’s (“MSG”) policy related to denying entry to its premises to attorneys associated with lawsuits against it. Plaintiffs are all such attorneys, bringing the present action to seek an order to: (1) enjoin and restrain Defendants from taking any action that may adversely impact Hutcher’s Season Tickets, and lifting MSG’s ban on Plaintiffs from entering MSG Venues; (2) declare MSG’s decision to revoke Hutcher’s Season Tickets to be in violation of ACAL §25.30(2); (3) declare MSG’s decision to ban Plaintiffs from MSG Venues to be in violation of CRL §40-b plus damages; (4) declare MSG’s decision to revoke Hutcher’s Season Tickets to be in violation of ACAL §25.30(2) and Defendants’ decision to ban Plaintiffs to be in violation of CRL §40-b; (5) Damages arising out of alleged Prima Facie Tort Against MSG; (6) Damages arising out of alleged Violation of Judiciary Law §487 Against Weidenfeld; (7) Damages arising out of alleged Tortious Interference with Business Relations Against MSG; and (8) Damages arising out of alleged Aiding and Abetting in Violation of CRL §40-b Against Weidenfeld. Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety. The Court will address each cause of action in turn. Discussion When considering a motion to dismiss based upon CPLR §3211(a)(7), the court must accept the alleged facts as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine whether the facts alleged fit into any cognizable legal theory. See Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 (1994). With respect to CPLR§3211(a)(1), a motion to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes a plaintiff’s factual allegations, and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law. See Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 98 N.Y.2d 314, 327 (2002). Furthermore, judicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are “essentially undeniable,” would qualify as “documentary evidence” in the proper case. Fontanetta v. Doe, 73 A.D.3d 78 (2d Dep’t 2010). This Court has previously upheld the defendants’ right to control access to the venues that they own, pursuant to the common law, so long as the policy they have created does not run afoul of other law. The Court has previously found that Civil Rights Law Section 40-b does not permit the defendants from blanket revoking all tickets to an individual or entity, and therefore the defendants’ policy was invalid insofar as it barred the entry by the plaintiffs into the locations owned by the defendants where they had a valid ticket that had not been specifically revoked by the defendants. The Court has been unpersuaded by the other laws sought to be invoked by plaintiffs, and noted that the scope of Section 40-b was limited. Therefore, this Court will grant the motion by defendants to dismiss in part except where Section 40-b has been invoked. There are two other cause of action this Court has not addressed and addresses below. Cause of action #5: Prima Facie Tort Against MSG Plaintiffs allege that MSG’s decision to ban Plaintiffs from entering MSG Venues and to revoke Hutcher’s Season Tickets has caused injury to Plaintiffs, which plaintiff qualifies as a prima facie tort. The Court respectfully disagrees with this qualification, as there was in this case no duty to admit from MSG separate from its contractual duties. This fifth cause of action is accordingly dismissed. Cause of action #7: Tortious Interference with Business Relations Against MSG Plaintiffs allege that MSG’s conduct towards Plaintiffs has negatively impacted their contractual relationships with existing clients and has harmed Plaintiffs’ ability to generate new business since MSG has barred Plaintiffs from MSG Venues. The elements of a tortious interference with business relations claim are: “(1) a plaintiff’s business relationship with a third party; (2) the defendant’s interference with that business relationship; (3) a showing that the defendant acted with the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff or used dishonest, unfair, or improper means; and (4) injury to the relationship.” CapLOC, LLC v. McCord, 2018 WL 3407708, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2018) Here, Plaintiffs fail to show both the first and the third prong of the CapLOC test, as the allegations are vague and conclusory and fail to identify a specific business relationship that was allegedly adversely affected, nor do they show that defendants acted with the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff. This seventh cause of action is accordingly dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted with regards to Plaintiffs’ causes of action one, two, five, six, and seven only, and denied as to the remaining counts. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE Dated: December 23, 2023
