A New York appellate court recently reversed a lower court's decision in a case involving a breach of contract and employment interference. The ruling affects both the plaintiff and the defendant, as it reinstates the defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff for tortious interference with employment opportunities. The court's decision underscores the importance of protecting employees from wrongful actions by their former employers.

The case, Hai Po Sun v. Jung Hoon Son, was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on November 10, 2026. The court's ruling came in response to an appeal filed by Jung Hoon Son, the defendant, who argued that the lower court's decision improperly dismissed his counterclaim against Hai Po Sun, the plaintiff.

Background

Hai Po Sun is a co-founder and the Chief Technology Officer of pulseData, Inc., where Jung Hoon Son was formerly employed. Sun initiated the lawsuit against Son for breach of contract and unjust enrichment after Son allegedly failed to repay a loan secured by a promissory note. The dispute arose when Son did not make the required payments, leading Sun to seek legal recourse.

In his defense, Son claimed that Sun had wrongfully interfered with his employment opportunities at another company. Son alleged that Sun initiated an investigation into his conduct while he was still employed at pulseData, which ultimately led to a cease and desist letter being sent to him and his potential employer. Son argued that Sun's actions were motivated by anger over the unpaid loan and resulted in the loss of his job opportunity.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the lower court's judgment, which had dismissed Son's counterclaim for interference with prospective economic advantage. The court found that Son had presented sufficient evidence to raise triable issues of fact regarding his claims. The judges involved in the decision were Webber, Moulton, Friedman, González, and Chan.

The court ruled, "Defendant presented sufficient evidence to raise triable issues of fact..." This statement highlights the court's belief that Son's claims warranted further examination.

Furthermore, the court noted that the evidence suggested Sun may have acted out of malice, particularly regarding accusations that Son disclosed trade secrets. The judges emphasized that a corporate officer, such as Sun, could still be held personally liable for wrongful conduct, even if it was believed to be for the corporation's benefit.

Impact

The ruling has significant implications for both parties involved. By reinstating Son's counterclaim, the court allows him to pursue his claims of tortious interference, which could lead to potential damages if he can prove his case. This decision also serves as a reminder to corporate officers about the potential legal consequences of their actions, especially when those actions may be perceived as personal vendettas rather than legitimate corporate interests.

Moreover, the court's decision reinforces the legal principle that employees have rights against wrongful interference from their former employers. This case could set a precedent for similar cases in the future, emphasizing the need for corporate officers to act within the bounds of their authority and to avoid using their positions to settle personal grievances.

What's Next

Following this ruling, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings regarding Son's counterclaim and affirmative defense. It remains to be seen whether Sun will appeal this decision or if there are any related cases pending that could impact the outcome of this matter.