Moreover, the amended answer's allegations do not support the inference that plaintiff intended to cause harm without economic excuse of justification, an essential element for an abuse of process cause of action. Plaintiff alleges that, because it did not know where defendant maintained bank accounts, it served 19 banks with main offices or branches located in New York City in a good faith effort to locate defendant's funds. This assertion is undisputed. Furthermore, plaintiff had a reasonable justification for not immediately removing the notices. Indeed, plaintiff has an unsatisfied judgment in this action, resulting from defendant's failure to honor the lien discharge bond and the undertaking to stay enforcement of the judgment was issued by a subsidiary of defendant, thereby casting doubt on its acceptability.
Defendant alleges that plaintiff's enforcement actions constitute bad faith.
The allegations of bad faith relate to plaintiff's enforcement actions and not to any contractual relationship between theparties. Moreover, as discussed above, the record does not indicate that plaintiff acted in bad faith. Prima Facie Tort . Defendant alleges that plaintiff's intentional and unjustifiable conduct in refusing to withdraw the restraining notices caused defendant to incur substantial expenses, including funding certain trust accounts to maintain minimum required levels, shifting funds among various accounts, and addressing notification and reporting requirements. Curiano v Suozzi , supra .