J. A. Preston Corp. v. Fabrication Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J. A. Preston Corp. v. Fabrication Enterprises, Inc.

127 A.D.2d 981, 513 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43474

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.2d 981 (J. A. Preston Corp. v. Fabrication Enterprises, Inc.) 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

J. A. Preston Corp. v. Fabrication Enterprises, Inc., 127 A.D.2d 981, 513 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this action alleging theft of trade secrets, the dispositive issue is whether plaintiffs’ manufacturing process was generally known in the trade (Eagle Comtronics v Pico, Inc., 89 AD2d 803). One of plaintiffs’ witnesses conceded that the individual steps of the process were all known, but that the combination of them was unique. Defendants presented expert witnesses and treatises refuting that position and establishing that the process was not unique and that the product could easily be reverse-engineered. Plaintiffs called only witnesses involved with their own company, including a deposition from one customer, but presented no expert testimony to rebut the opinions expressed by defendants’ experts. The Hearing Officer, therefore, correctly found for defendants. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Aronson, J.H.O. — theft of [982]*982trade secrets.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this action alleging theft of trade secrets, the dispositive issue is whether plaintiffs’ manufacturing process was generally known in the trade (Eagle Comtronics v Pico, Inc., 89 AD2d 803). One of plaintiffs’ witnesses conceded that the individual steps of the process were all known, but that the combination of them was unique. Defendants presented expert witnesses and treatises refuting that position and establishing that the process was not unique and that the product could easily be reverse-engineered. Plaintiffs called only witnesses involved with their own company, including a deposition from one customer, but presented no expert testimony to rebut the opinions expressed by defendants’ experts. The Hearing Officer, therefore, correctly found for defendants. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Aronson, J.H.O. — theft of [982]*982trade secrets.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 981, 513 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-a-preston-corp-v-fabrication-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack