Case Name: Sidney M. Rothschild et al., Appellants, v. World-Wide Automobiles Corporation et al., Defendants, and Samuel C. Dretzin, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1966-12-30
Citations: 18 N.Y.2d 982
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sidney M. Rothschild et al., Appellants, v. World-Wide Automobiles Corporation et al., Defendants, and Samuel C. Dretzin, Respondent.
Judges: Judges Ftjld, Van Voobhis, Scileppi and Beegan concur in Memorandum; Judge Btjbke dissents in an opinion in which Chief Judge Desmond and Judge Keating concur.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 982–986

Head Matter:
Sidney M. Rothschild et al., Appellants, v. World-Wide Automobiles Corporation et al., Defendants, and Samuel C. Dretzin, Respondent.
Argued December 1, 1966;
decided December 30, 1966.
Daniel Rosen for appellants.
J ay Leo Rothschild for respondent.

Opinion:
MemoRAndum. Order granting summary judgment dismissing complaint affirmed, with costs to defendant-respondent. Plaintiffs do not establish in support of their complaint and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment that they had a contract which could form a basis for a cause of action against defendant-respondent for interference; nor do they in any event show facts which would impute a personal liability to defendant-respondent for acts of tort chargeable to the corporations of which the latter was an officer and director. The causes of action based upon purported restraint of trade are not supported by any fact in plaintiffs' proof in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. What is shown is that defendant-respondent attempted to prevent the extension of a franchise for plaintiffs to sell products of a single manufacturer of automobiles into close competition with a territory in which defendant-respondent bad an interest. There is hence not a sufficient showing of monopolistic practices to warrant a trial on that issue.