<b>Decision of Note:</b><b>Agency Contract Found Properly Disaffirmed</b>

A Manhattan federal district court granted summary judgment dismissing a claim against a Canadian modeling agency for tortious interference with contract. NYC Management Group Inc. v. Brown-Miller, 03-2617. The defendant had secured New York agency representation from the plaintiff's modeling agency for 16-year-old Jessica Stam, who later disaffirmed the minor's contract based on her unhappiness with the plaintiff's agency.

The New York modeling contract stipulated California as its choice of law, but Stam hadn't had the contract court-approved as required by that state. When NYC Management Group filed suit in New York, the district court determined: “The Stam Agreement, in light of the foregoing, was clearly voidable as a contract entered into by a minor. Consequently, the disaffirmance of such a contract does not literally constitute a breach and, therefore, an essential element of a claim for tortious interference with contract would appear to be missing. New York courts, however, appear to permit tortious interference claims to proceed where there is a disaffirmance of a voidable contract that is procured by wrongful means, unlawful restraint of trade, or lack of competitive motive.” But the district court found that the plaintiff had presented no admissible evidence to fulfill this requirement.

The court also dismissed NYC Management Group's other claims, including for defamation and tortious interference with prospective economic relations.

A Manhattan federal district court granted summary judgment dismissing a claim against a Canadian modeling agency for tortious interference with contract. NYC Management Group Inc. v. Brown-Miller, 03-2617. The defendant had secured New York agency representation from the plaintiff's modeling agency for 16-year-old Jessica Stam, who later disaffirmed the minor's contract based on her unhappiness with the plaintiff's agency.

The New York modeling contract stipulated California as its choice of law, but Stam hadn't had the contract court-approved as required by that state. When NYC Management Group filed suit in New York, the district court determined: “The Stam Agreement, in light of the foregoing, was clearly voidable as a contract entered into by a minor. Consequently, the disaffirmance of such a contract does not literally constitute a breach and, therefore, an essential element of a claim for tortious interference with contract would appear to be missing. New York courts, however, appear to permit tortious interference claims to proceed where there is a disaffirmance of a voidable contract that is procured by wrongful means, unlawful restraint of trade, or lack of competitive motive.” But the district court found that the plaintiff had presented no admissible evidence to fulfill this requirement.

The court also dismissed NYC Management Group's other claims, including for defamation and tortious interference with prospective economic relations.