Linderman v. Pennsylvania Building Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Linderman v. Pennsylvania Building Co.

289 A.D.2d 77, 734 N.Y.S.2d 67, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12124

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 77 (Linderman v. Pennsylvania Building Co.) 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

Linderman v. Pennsylvania Building Co., 289 A.D.2d 77, 734 N.Y.S.2d 67, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered November 3, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ motion insofar as to enjoin defendant and its agents, servants, employees and all other persons acting under its authority from [78]*78preventing plaintiffs from inspecting and copying books and records of defendant partnership, and denied defendant’s cross motion seeking, inter alia, an order of confidentiality, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although defendant’s request for an order of confidentiality is not academic (cf., O’Hara v Bayliner, 248 AD2d 149), it is lacking in merit. While there is only a minimal initial burden where a disclosure objectant asserts that the subject documents contain trade secrets (see, e.g., Bristol, Litynski, Wojcik v Town of Queensbury, 166 AD2d 772, 773), the affidavit of defendant’s general partner does not include non-conclusory assertions (see, Sheldon v Kimberly-Clark Corp., 111 AD2d 912, 913) giving rise to a “concern that [defendant’s] competitors may gain some competitive advantage as a result of discovery of secret business procedures and information” (see, Jackson v Dow Chem. Co., 214 AD2d 827, 828). Denial of the order of confidentiality was therefore proper (cf., Blum v New York Stock Exch., 263 AD2d 522, 523). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Tom and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered November 3, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ motion insofar as to enjoin defendant and its agents, servants, employees and all other persons acting under its authority from [78]*78preventing plaintiffs from inspecting and copying books and records of defendant partnership, and denied defendant’s cross motion seeking, inter alia, an order of confidentiality, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although defendant’s request for an order of confidentiality is not academic (cf., O’Hara v Bayliner, 248 AD2d 149), it is lacking in merit. While there is only a minimal initial burden where a disclosure objectant asserts that the subject documents contain trade secrets (see, e.g., Bristol, Litynski, Wojcik v Town of Queensbury, 166 AD2d 772, 773), the affidavit of defendant’s general partner does not include non-conclusory assertions (see, Sheldon v Kimberly-Clark Corp., 111 AD2d 912, 913) giving rise to a “concern that [defendant’s] competitors may gain some competitive advantage as a result of discovery of secret business procedures and information” (see, Jackson v Dow Chem. Co., 214 AD2d 827, 828). Denial of the order of confidentiality was therefore proper (cf., Blum v New York Stock Exch., 263 AD2d 522, 523). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Tom and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 77, 734 N.Y.S.2d 67, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linderman-v-pennsylvania-building-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack