private right of action to enforce these rules.”); Jaksich v. Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc., 582 F.Supp. 485, 499-501 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (utilizing the Cort v. Ash four-prong test to determine that a NYSE rule and NYSD constitutional provision provide no private rights of action). Thus, plaintiff has no cause of action under either rule for any alleged violations. Plaintiff attempts to evade the absence of a private right of action by converting his claim into one for (1) breach of contract as an intended third-party beneficiary of the NASD/NYSE’s rules, or (2) tortious interference with contract. (P. Mem.9-14.) Both of these claims require the existence of a contract to succeed. See Maldonado v. Olympia Mech. Piping & Heating Corp., 8 A.D.3d 348, 777 N.Y.S.2d 730, 731 (2d Dep’t 2004) (<HOLDING>); Bradbury v. Woller Cope-Schwarz, 20 A.D.3d
holding that the trial court should have dismissed the employees breach of contract claim holding that the plaintiffs breach of contract claim was properly a statutory claim under the personnel management act holding that a breach of contract claim was properly dismissed where plaintiff did not identify the contracts allegedly breached recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding trial court properly dismissed pursuant to 12b6 plaintiffs claim where plaintiff did not allege existence of a valid option contract