Leibinger-Roberts, Inc. v. Fulton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leibinger-Roberts, Inc. v. Fulton

214 A.D.2d 359, 625 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4155

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

DecidedApril 11, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 359 (Leibinger-Roberts, Inc. v. Fulton) 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

Leibinger-Roberts, Inc. v. Fulton, 214 A.D.2d 359, 625 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J., and a jury), entered February 24, 1994, in favor of defendant-respondent and against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a corporation against its former president and director alleging, inter alia, unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets in violation of an express employment contract and fiduciary duties, we find that the jury instructions, viewed as a whole, adequately explained the applicable legal principles and their relation to the factual contentions of the parties, and that the jury reasonably determined that defendant’s unauthorized dissemination of certain confidential information did not cause any reduction in the market value of plaintiff corporation. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Asch, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J., and a jury), entered February 24, 1994, in favor of defendant-respondent and against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a corporation against its former president and director alleging, inter alia, unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets in violation of an express employment contract and fiduciary duties, we find that the jury instructions, viewed as a whole, adequately explained the applicable legal principles and their relation to the factual contentions of the parties, and that the jury reasonably determined that defendant’s unauthorized dissemination of certain confidential information did not cause any reduction in the market value of plaintiff corporation. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Asch, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 359, 625 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leibinger-roberts-inc-v-fulton-nyappdiv-1995.