Hurlbut Health Consulting v. Otis Elevator Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HURLBUT HEALTH CONSULTING,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY,
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
24-CV-6562 (MAV)
In September 2024, Plaintiff Hurlbut Health Consulting ("Hurlbut") filed this
action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe against
Defendant Otis Elevator Company ("Otis") for breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
and "tortious interference with business." 1 ECF No. 1-4. Otis removed the matter to
this Court later that same month. ECF No. 1.
The matter is presently before the Court on Otis's motion to dismiss Hurlbut's
claim for "tortious interference with business." ECF No. 4. For the reasons stated
below, 	Otis's motion is granted and Hurlbut's claim for tortious interference is
dismissed.
1 Otis points out that Hurlbut's cause of action for "Tortious Interference with
Business" is not a cause of action under New York law, which recognizes only causes
of action for "tortious interference with contract" and "tortious interference with
business relations." ECF No. 4-1 at 4-8. Hurlbut's recitation of the elements of its
claim, however, makes clear that its claim is "tortious interference with business
relations." Compare ECF No. 8 at 2-3, with 16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin, 791 F.3d
247,261 (2d Cir. 2015) (listing the elements as "(1) the plaintiff had business relations
with a third party; (2) the defendant interfered with those business relations; (3) the
defendant acted for a wrongful purpose or used dishonest, unfair, or improper means;
and (4) the defendant's acts injured the relationship.").
1
Case 6:24-cv-06562-MAV-MJP Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 7

BACKGROUND
The following background has been drawn from 	Hurlbut's first 	amended
complaint 	("FAC"), 	as 	well 	as 	"documents 	incorporated 	into 	the 	complaint by
reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice." Tellabs, Inc. v.
Makar Issues & Rights, 	Ltd., 	551 U.S. 	308, 	322 (2007). The factual allegations
contained in the complaint have been accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences
drawn in Hurlbut's favor. See Menaker v. Hofstra Univ., 935 F.3d 20, 26 (2d Cir.
2019).
Hurlbut provides administrative services to various nursing homes in the
Upstate New York region. FAC ,r 1. Otis is a corporation authorized to do business in
New York that provides elevator inspection and repair services. FAC ,r,r 2, 4-5.
On May 2, 2023, a service technician from Otis visited Hurlbut's offices to
perform an elevator inspection. FAC ,r 5. The technician informed Hurlbut that the
elevator's motor would need to be rebuilt, and on May 22, 2023, a team of Otis
mechanics removed the motor from the elevator to diagnose the problems with the
motor. FAC ,r,r 6-7. In late September 2023, Otis mechanics installed the rebuilt
motor and addressed some unforeseen electrical issues. FAC ,r,r 8-9. Nevertheless,
even after the motor was installed and the electrical issues addressed, and after
Hurlbut paid Otis $15,849.00, the elevator was still not operational. FAC ,r,r 10, 15.
In fact, Hurlbut's elevator was out of operation between May 2023 and March
2024. 	During that time, 	Hurlbut employees "were 	made to carry heavy boxes,
materials, and supplies up and down multiple flights of stairs to and from storage."
2
Case 6:24-cv-06562-MAV-MJP Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 7

FAC ,r 29. In addition, Hurlbut employees "could not access the needed and valuable
personal protection equipment (PPE) necessary for the safety and well-being of
[Hurlbut's] clients .... " FAC ,r 30. Consequently, Hurlbut "was forced to redirect
time and resources away from its day-to-day business to address the difficulties
created by" Otis's failure to fix the elevator, including the rental of a storage unit at
an outside facility so that Hurlbut employees could access necessary equipment and
materials. FAC ,r,r 31-32.
Finally, in March 2024, Hurlbut hired a different company, Omni Elevators, to
fix the elevator and return it to operation. FAC ,r 11. After returning the elevator to
operation, Omni technicians informed Hurlbut that the motor windings had been
shorted and burned due to incorrect electrical connections, there was no evidence that
the motor had actually been repaired or rebuilt as Otis claimed, and the electrical
components Otis installed were the incorrect type for that particular elevator. FAC
,r,r 12-15. Hurlbut paid Omni $11,701.80 to return the elevator to operation. FAC
,r 16.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows dismissal of a
complaint "for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). The rule is "'designed to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, and
thus does not require the Court to examine the evidence at issue."' Kelly v. DCC Tech.
Holdings, Inc., 724 F. Supp. 3d 122, 141 (W.D.N.Y. 2024) (quoting De Jesus v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., 87 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1996)).
3
Case 6:24-cv-06562-MAV-MJP Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 7

A claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) "when the allegations in [the]
complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief .... " 	Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 578 (2007). Thus, to survive review under Rule
12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements" are insufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
DISCUSSION
Although Hurlbut's amended complaint includes three causes of action, the
only claim that Otis challenges in the present motion is Hurlbut's claim of tortious
interference. ECF No. 4-1 at 4. Specifically, Otis maintains that Hurlbut "fails to
plead facts sufficient to establish that Otis'[s] alleged failure to repair the elevator
was done to harm [Hurlbut] or that [Hurlbut] was prevented from entering into a
contract with a third-party as a result of Otis'[s] conduct." Id. at 7. Otis also argues
that even if Hurlbut's claim is cognizable, the damages it seeks are barred by the
economic loss rule and by the limitation of liability clause contained in the contracts
between the parties. Id. at 9.
In response, Hurlbut maintains that it has pleaded a sufficient basis for its
4
Case 6:24-cv-06562-MAV-MJP Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 7

tortious interference claim. In particular, Hurlbut alleges that Otis was aware that
Hurlbut provided back-office 	and administrative 	support for 	11 skilled nursing
facilities in the Upstate New York region; that Otis was aware that the PPE being
stored at Hurlbut's offices was only accessible via the elevator Otis was engaged to
repair; that Otis was intentionally dishonest about the so-called repairs it made to
the elevator, and was grossly negligent in its work with the elevator's capacitors; and
that Hurlbut was not able to serve its clients in the customary manner because
Hurlbut employees were not able to use the elevator in question. ECF No. 8 at 3-4.
The elements of a tortious interference with business relations claim under
New York law are well-settled: "'a plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff had
business relations with a third party; (2) the defendant interfered with those business
relations; (3) the defendant acted for a wrongful purpose or used dishonest, unfair, or
improper means; and (4) the defendant's acts injured the relationship."' Alliant Ins.
Servs., Inc. v. Resilience Ins. Advisory Corp., No. 23-CV-09277 (MMG), 2025 WL
2780856, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2025) (quoting Pride Techs., LLC v. Kkublall, No.
21-2225, 2022 WL 17587755, at *1 (2d Cir. Dec. 13, 2022)) (other citations omitted).
Further, 	"[a]s federal 	courts 	applying New York law have 	recognized, 	conduct
constituting tortious interference with business relations is, by definition, conduct
directed not at the plaintiff itself, but at the party with which the plaintiff has or
seeks to have a relationship." Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 818 N.E.2d 1100, 1104 (N.Y.
2004) (collecting cases). See also, e.g., Valley Lane Indus. Co. v. Victoria's Secret Direct
Brand Mgmt., L.L.C., 455 F. App'x 102, 107 (2d Cir. 2012) (applying Carvel to find no
5
Case 6:24-cv-06562-MAV-MJP Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 7

claim where the allegations involved conduct by the defendants directed at the
plaintiff, and not a third party).
Here, Hurlbut alleges that the conduct constituting tortious interference with
business relations is conduct directed at Hurlbut itself (i.e., the plaintiff), and not at
the 	party 	or 	parties 	with 	which 	Hurlbut 	had 	or 	sought 	to 	have 	a 	business
relationship. 	In the 	amended complaint, 	Hurlbut alleges that: 	Otis's failure 	to
properly fix the elevator prevented Hurlbut from doing business in its usual manner
(FAC ,r 27); prevented Hurlbut from running its business, and caused a loss of
revenue (FAC ,r 28); forced Hurlbut employees to carry heavy boxes up and down
multiple 	flights 	of stairs 	(FAC 	,r 29); 	denied Hurlbut employees 	access to the
necessary PPE (FAC ,r 30); required Hurlbut to incur extra monthly costs for storage
(FAC ,r 31); and disrupted Hurlbut's daily operations (FAC ,r 32). In addition, in its
memorandum in opposition to Otis's motion to dismiss, Hurlbut stated that "[a]s
pertains to Element No. 3" -i.e., the defendant acted for a wrongful purpose or used
improper means - 	Otis "was intentionally dishonest about the so-called 'repairs' it
made to the elevator in questions." ECF No. 8 at 3 (underline in the original).
Each of these allegations relate to Otis's conduct toward Hurlbut, and not
toward any third party with which Hurlbut sought business relations. Therefore,
Hurlbut's claim for tortious interference with business relations must be dismissed.
See, e.g., Popat v. Levy, 328 F. Supp. 3d 106, 140 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (dismissing a cause
of action for tortious interference with business relations where 	the 	complaint
contained no allegations that the defendant directed any behavior that could be
6
Case 6:24-cv-06562-MAV-MJP Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 6 of 7

construed as constituting "wrongful means" toward the third party with which the
plaintiff had business relations) (collecting cases).
Because the Court finds merit in Otis's argument regarding the sufficiency of
Hurlbut's pleadings, the Court need not address whether Hurlbut's claim would have
been barred by either the economic loss doctrine or the limitation of liability clause
in the parties' contracts.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED 	that 	Defendant 	Otis 	Elevator 	Company's 	motion 	to 	dismiss
Plaintiff Hurlbut Health Consulting's cause of action for tortious interference with
business relations [ECF No. 4] is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Otis Elevator Company must file an answer to
Plaintiff Hurlbut Health Consulting's remaining claims of breach of contract and
unjust enrichment within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.
Dated:
SO ORDERED.
January b, 2026
Rochester, New York
7
c&ldctl1nb/4-H0N.EREDITH A. VACCA
United States District Judge
Case 6:24-cv-06562-MAV-MJP Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 7 of 7