Baron v. Walco Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baron v. Walco Corp.

32 A.D.2d 523, 299 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4157

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 22, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 523 (Baron v. Walco Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baron v. Walco Corp., 32 A.D.2d 523, 299 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered December 24, 1968, denying temporary injunction unanimously reversed on the law and the facts and temporary injunction granted, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, on order to be settled conditioned on plaintiff’s filing a security company bond in the sum of $10,000. Plaintiff licensed Southway Corporation to market its patented product. Defendant Warner is the sole beneficial stockholder of Southway. In the license agreement Southway and Warner agreed not to permit others to use the product or to disclose any information in regard to it. The agreement was allowed to lapse and Southway without objection forfeited a sum deposited in escrow. Immediately thereafter Warner organized defendant Walco, which proceeded to market a product very similar to plaintiff’s. Warner’s explanation of these events is replete with inconsistencies, contradictions and statements difficult to believe. Undoubtedly plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if Walco is permitted to market its product and it should appear that defendants have wrongfully appropriated it. Under these circumstances, a temporary injunction should issue (CPLR 6301; cf. Spiselman v. Rabinowitz, 270 App. Div. 548). Settle order on notice. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Tilzer, Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order entered December 24, 1968, denying temporary injunction unanimously reversed on the law and the facts and temporary injunction granted, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, on order to be settled conditioned on plaintiff’s filing a security company bond in the sum of $10,000. Plaintiff licensed Southway Corporation to market its patented product. Defendant Warner is the sole beneficial stockholder of Southway. In the license agreement Southway and Warner agreed not to permit others to use the product or to disclose any information in regard to it. The agreement was allowed to lapse and Southway without objection forfeited a sum deposited in escrow. Immediately thereafter Warner organized defendant Walco, which proceeded to market a product very similar to plaintiff’s. Warner’s explanation of these events is replete with inconsistencies, contradictions and statements difficult to believe. Undoubtedly plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if Walco is permitted to market its product and it should appear that defendants have wrongfully appropriated it. Under these circumstances, a temporary injunction should issue (CPLR 6301; cf. Spiselman v. Rabinowitz, 270 App. Div. 548). Settle order on notice. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Tilzer, Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 523, 299 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baron-v-walco-corp-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack