Reyes v. Chetta
To prove tortious interference with business expectancies, a plaintiff must establish: 1.) a business relationship between the plaintiff and another party; 2.) the defendant intentionally interfered with the business relationship; and 3.) as a result of the defendants interference, the plaintiff suffered actual loss. In August 2007, the defendant, Amoroso, sold his landscaping business to the defendant, Nicholas Chetta, for $85,000, pursuant to a promissory note to be paid at the rate of $2,200 per month. In January 2008, Nicholas Chetta sold the landscaping business to the plaintiff, Estuardo Reyes, for $50,000. Nicholas Chetta informed his customers that Reyes was his new manager. In April 2008, Nicholas Chetta allegedly failed to pay $2,200 to the defendant, Amoroso. In response, Amoroso allegedly contacted all of his former clients, informed them he was back in business and asked them to cancel their contracts with Estuardo Reyes. Amoroso testified that approximately 70 percent of his former clients returned to him. Reyes sued Amoroso and Chetta, alleging breach of contract, conversion, unfair trade practices and that they tortiously interfered with business expectancies, and he lost the $50,000 he spent to purchase the business, plus $32,000 per year in profits. In a corrected memorandum of decision, the court found that Reyes proved that Amoroso tortiously interfered with business expectancies and engaged in unfair trade practices. Reyes did not prove he lost $32,000 per year in profits. The court awarded Reyes $50,000 in damages, plus attorneys fees and interest.