## Facts

- Anthony Conte founded I Media to publish and distribute a television-listing magazine, *TV Time*, using route distributors who paid upfront for exclusive distribution rights in defined areas.
- I Media encountered major production and distribution failures; some distributors received no magazines, suspected fraud, and complained to the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office.
- Assistant District Attorneys Robert Emmons and William Wallace and investigator Michael Falzarno were assigned to investigate, using subpoenas and contacts with distributors, printers, and potential advertisers; no criminal charges were filed against Conte.
- Conte alleged defendants exceeded legitimate investigative conduct by making disparaging or damaging statements to his counterparties, including Falzarno calling Conte a “scam artist” and Wallace informing some counterparties that Conte and I Media were under investigation for fraud.
- Conte claimed these actions caused distributors, printers, and advertisers to breach contracts with I Media, contributing to the company’s collapse.
- After trial in the Eastern District of New York, a jury returned a mixed verdict that included substantial damages for tortious interference with contract under New York law.
- Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) and renewed under Rule 50(b), arguing insufficient evidence of intent and causation; the district court denied the motions.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that the defendants intentionally procured third parties’ breaches of Conte’s specific contracts under New York law.
2. Whether the trial evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find “but-for” causation—that the breaches would not have occurred absent defendants’ conduct.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the denial of judgment as a matter of law on the tortious interference claims and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for defendants on those claims.
- The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient for a reasonable jury to find the required intent to induce contract breaches.
- The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove but-for causation for any specific contract breach, as Conte offered no non-speculative, contract-specific proof linking defendants’ conduct to third-party nonperformance.
- A dissent would have upheld the verdict, concluding the jury could infer intent and causation from defendants’ negative statements and the ensuing relationship breakdowns.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, tortious interference with contract requires: (1) a valid contract, (2) defendant’s knowledge of it, (3) intentional procurement of the third party’s breach without justification, (4) actual breach, and (5) resulting damages.
- The plaintiff must also prove but-for causation: the breach would not have occurred absent the defendant’s conduct.
- “Intentional procurement” requires proof the defendant acted with the purpose of causing the breach; foreseeable or incidental harm from other conduct is insufficient.
- On Rule 50 review, a jury verdict cannot stand where evidence on essential elements (including intent and causation) is speculative or unsupported as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit set aside the tortious interference verdict because the record showed, at most, investigative activity with adverse collateral effects and did not supply contract-specific evidence that defendants purposefully induced, or actually caused, any third party’s breach as required by New York law.


Conte v. Emmons, 895 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2018)