person’s conduct is motivated by a desire to protect his economic interest, or whether it is motivated by spite, malice, or some other improper objective. Id. at 31. In our view, this rule applies to this case. Although the defendant in Bendix was a corporation which forced its subsidiary to breach a contract with the plaintiff, we recognized that another economic interest which would support a claim of privilege was the interest which a lessor had “in his property to interfere in a sublease.” Id. (citing Bergfeld v. Stork, 1 Ill.App.3d 486, 288 N.E.2d 15 (1972)). A number of other cases have recognized that a landlord has a sufficient interest to interfere with a prospective or actual lease assignment. Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. NBD Trust Co. of Illinois, 904 F.2d 1172, 1178 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Walner v. Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Co., 514
recognizing privilege where lessor wished to maintain control over appearance and character of shopping center recognizing that enhancement requires control over a participant in the scheme not only control over the scheme itself recognizing privilege recognizing that knowledge and dominion and control are separate elements and stating that it is conceivable that an accused might be well aware of the presence of the substance but have no ability to maintain control over it holding it is critical to the trial courts power of control over its own docket and its ability to serve effectively all litigants that it maintain control over progress of cases before it including requests for extensions of time