Foods Plus, Inc. v. Frankel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foods Plus, Inc. v. Frankel

54 A.D.2d 706, 387 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14285

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 706 (Foods Plus, Inc. v. Frankel) 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

Foods Plus, Inc. v. Frankel, 54 A.D.2d 706, 387 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to enjoin defendants from disclosing any of plaintiff’s "trade secrets”, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 30, 1976, which denied their motion to dismiss the first cause of action and for summary judgment with respect thereto. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. No findings of fact were presented for review. Plaintiff contends that its marketing program and customer lists are entitled to protection as trade secrets. Defendants moved for summary judgment and, by their affidavits, made a prima facie showing that the first cause of action lacks merit. Plaintiff was therefore bound to come forward with proof of evidentiary facts showing a triable issue as to the allegations of the said cause of action (see O’Hara v Gardner Adv., 32 AD2d 632). Plaintiff failed to state evidentiary facts showing the uniqueness of its marketing program and, absent such a showing, its program is not entitled to trade secret protection (cf. Peerless Pattern Co. v Pictorial Review Co., 147 App Div 715). Since plaintiff’s customers are readily ascertainable outside of its business, trade secret protection will not attach to its customer lists (see Leo Silfen, Inc. v Cream, 29 NY2d 387). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Hargett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to enjoin defendants from disclosing any of plaintiff’s "trade secrets”, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 30, 1976, which denied their motion to dismiss the first cause of action and for summary judgment with respect thereto. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. No findings of fact were presented for review. Plaintiff contends that its marketing program and customer lists are entitled to protection as trade secrets. Defendants moved for summary judgment and, by their affidavits, made a prima facie showing that the first cause of action lacks merit. Plaintiff was therefore bound to come forward with proof of evidentiary facts showing a triable issue as to the allegations of the said cause of action (see O’Hara v Gardner Adv., 32 AD2d 632). Plaintiff failed to state evidentiary facts showing the uniqueness of its marketing program and, absent such a showing, its program is not entitled to trade secret protection (cf. Peerless Pattern Co. v Pictorial Review Co., 147 App Div 715). Since plaintiff’s customers are readily ascertainable outside of its business, trade secret protection will not attach to its customer lists (see Leo Silfen, Inc. v Cream, 29 NY2d 387). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Hargett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 706, 387 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foods-plus-inc-v-frankel-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack