CMX Laboratories, Inc. v. Glenz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CMX Laboratories, Inc. v. Glenz

151 A.D.2d 1030, 544 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8380

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 2, 1989·Published

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied summary judgment to defendant Arthur Glenz on his motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint and for judgment on his second counterclaim. There are triable issues of fact, such as the nature and extent of Glenz’s business relationship with the other defendants, whether Glenz had access to confidential information of the plaintiff and in what capacity Glenz was employed by a competing business established by defendants Polito and Carmichael (see, Victor Temporary Servs. v Slattery, 105 AD2d 1115, 1117; Alexander & Alexander Servs. v Maloff, 105 AD2d 1066). The affidavit of plaintiffs two attorneys, who had firsthand knowledge of the material allegations, was sufficient to defeat the motion (see, Caramanica v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 110 AD2d 869). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied summary judgment to defendant Arthur Glenz on his motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint and for judgment on his second counterclaim. There are triable issues of fact, such as the nature and extent of Glenz’s business relationship with the other defendants, whether Glenz had access to confidential information of the plaintiff and in what capacity Glenz was employed by a competing business established by defendants Polito and Carmichael (see, Victor Temporary Servs. v Slattery, 105 AD2d 1115, 1117; Alexander & Alexander Servs. v Maloff, 105 AD2d 1066). The affidavit of plaintiffs two attorneys, who had firsthand knowledge of the material allegations, was sufficient to defeat the motion (see, Caramanica v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 110 AD2d 869). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

CMX Laboratories, Inc. v. Glenz, 151 A.D.2d 1030, 544 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

151 A.D.2d 1030 (CMX Laboratories, Inc. v. Glenz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related