Eber Bros. Wine & Liquor Corp. v. Ribowsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eber Bros. Wine & Liquor Corp. v. Ribowsky

252 A.D.2d 513, 675 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8257

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 13, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered August 18, 1997, which denied their motion, inter alia, to hold the defendants Michael Shaw and Gallo Wine Distributors, Inc., d/b/a Premier Wine and Spirits, Inc., in contempt of court for violating a stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on June 10, 1997, and (2) an order of the same court entered September 5, 1997, which denied the plaintiffs’ motions, inter alia, to hold the defendants in contempt of court for violating the stipulation of settlement.

[514]*514Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs did not submit any proof, but merely conclusory allegations, that the defendants used confidential information in obtaining the subject suppliers as clients. Specifically, the record is devoid of any proof that the defendants “use[d] confidential information in” contacting or soliciting those suppliers, or “use[d] * * * information” belonging to the plaintiffs “set forth in the reports identified in paragraph 19 of the Verified Complaint”, in violation of the stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on June 10, 1997, prohibiting such conduct (see, Bay Parkway Super Clean Car Wash v Accurate Auto Repair, 220 AD2d 549, 550, citing Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583, amended on other grounds 60 NY2d 652).

The remaining contentions of the plaintiffs are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered August 18, 1997, which denied their motion, inter alia, to hold the defendants Michael Shaw and Gallo Wine Distributors, Inc., d/b/a Premier Wine and Spirits, Inc., in contempt of court for violating a stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on June 10, 1997, and (2) an order of the same court entered September 5, 1997, which denied the plaintiffs’ motions, inter alia, to hold the defendants in contempt of court for violating the stipulation of settlement.

[514]*514Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs did not submit any proof, but merely conclusory allegations, that the defendants used confidential information in obtaining the subject suppliers as clients. Specifically, the record is devoid of any proof that the defendants “use[d] confidential information in” contacting or soliciting those suppliers, or “use[d] * * * information” belonging to the plaintiffs “set forth in the reports identified in paragraph 19 of the Verified Complaint”, in violation of the stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on June 10, 1997, prohibiting such conduct (see, Bay Parkway Super Clean Car Wash v Accurate Auto Repair, 220 AD2d 549, 550, citing Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583, amended on other grounds 60 NY2d 652).

The remaining contentions of the plaintiffs are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Eber Bros. Wine & Liquor Corp. v. Ribowsky, 252 A.D.2d 513, 675 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

252 A.D.2d 513 (Eber Bros. Wine & Liquor Corp. v. Ribowsky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related