With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in order adequately to allege tortious interference by a party with an economic interest, Houbigant must allege that the Zohar Funds and Patriarch acted either maliciously, fraudulently, or illegally. Houbigant has failed to do so. In characterizing Defendants’ conduct as “malicious,” Houbigant alleges that the Zohar Funds and Patriarch acted “without justification.” (Countercl. ¶¶ 201, 227, 236.) Such allegations, without more, are inadequate. See Rather v. CBS Corp., 68 A.D.3d 49, 886 N.Y.S.2d 121, 128 (N.Y.App.Div., 1st Dep’t, 2009) (finding “bare allegations of malice” to be insufficient “to bring the [tortious interference] claim under an exception to the economic interest rule”); see also Ruha v. Guior, 277 A.D.2d 116, 717 N.Y.S.2d 35, 36 (N.Y.App. Div., 1st Dep’t, 2000) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Houbigant’s claims that “IMG

A: holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim
B: holding that plaintiffs allegations of abuse did not amount to the allegations of torture required by  1605a7 to survive a motion to dismiss
C: holding that plaintiffs bare allegations of malice do not suffice particularly where such allegations are contradicted by plaintiffs own claims that defendants actions were financially motivated
D: holding insufficient the plaintiffs generic allegations
C.