Perfect Fit Glove Co. v. Post

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perfect Fit Glove Co. v. Post

222 A.D.2d 1025, 635 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14073

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1025 (Perfect Fit Glove Co. v. Post) 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

Perfect Fit Glove Co. v. Post, 222 A.D.2d 1025, 635 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed [1026]*1026with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion, brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), insofar as it sought dismissal of the second cause of action alleging that David G. Post breached his covenant to preserve the confidentiality of customer information, pricing policies and manufacturing processes. Although covenants that tend to prevent employees from pursuing similar employment upon termination or retirement are disfavored by the law (Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co. v A-1-A Corp., 42 NY2d 496, 499; Briskin v All Seasons Servs., 206 AD2d 906), reasonable restrictions related to the disclosure of trade secrets or confidential customer information will be enforced (American Broadcasting Cos. v Wolf, 52 NY2d 394, 403-404; Victor Temporary Servs. v Slattery, 105 AD2d 1115, 1116). Assuming, as we must, the truth of the allegations in the complaint and statements in the affidavits submitted by plaintiff (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88), we conclude that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that its customer information, pricing policies, and manufacturing processes are not publicly known nor ascertainable from sources outside the company; that Post acquired knowledge of those confidences while employed with plaintiff; and that, while employed with plaintiff, Post misappropriated that information and used it to the benefit of a competitor of plaintiff in violation of the non-disclosure provision of his contract of employment (see, Ward v Arcade Bldg. Maintenance, 191 AD2d 368; Rochester Tel. Mobile Communications v Auto Sound Sys., 182 AD2d 1119).

The court also properly denied defendants’ motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the sixth cause of action alleging that Florida Glove, Inc., intentionally interfered with Post’s employment relationship with plaintiff by inducing Post to violate the covenant restricting disclosure of confidential information acquired while working for plaintiff (see, Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 NY2d 183; A. S. Rampell, Inc. v Hyster Co., 3 NY2d 369).

Defendants concede that the remaining issue raised on appeal has been rendered moot by amendment of the complaint. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed [1026]*1026with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion, brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), insofar as it sought dismissal of the second cause of action alleging that David G. Post breached his covenant to preserve the confidentiality of customer information, pricing policies and manufacturing processes. Although covenants that tend to prevent employees from pursuing similar employment upon termination or retirement are disfavored by the law (Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co. v A-1-A Corp., 42 NY2d 496, 499; Briskin v All Seasons Servs., 206 AD2d 906), reasonable restrictions related to the disclosure of trade secrets or confidential customer information will be enforced (American Broadcasting Cos. v Wolf, 52 NY2d 394, 403-404; Victor Temporary Servs. v Slattery, 105 AD2d 1115, 1116). Assuming, as we must, the truth of the allegations in the complaint and statements in the affidavits submitted by plaintiff (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88), we conclude that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that its customer information, pricing policies, and manufacturing processes are not publicly known nor ascertainable from sources outside the company; that Post acquired knowledge of those confidences while employed with plaintiff; and that, while employed with plaintiff, Post misappropriated that information and used it to the benefit of a competitor of plaintiff in violation of the non-disclosure provision of his contract of employment (see, Ward v Arcade Bldg. Maintenance, 191 AD2d 368; Rochester Tel. Mobile Communications v Auto Sound Sys., 182 AD2d 1119).

The court also properly denied defendants’ motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the sixth cause of action alleging that Florida Glove, Inc., intentionally interfered with Post’s employment relationship with plaintiff by inducing Post to violate the covenant restricting disclosure of confidential information acquired while working for plaintiff (see, Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 NY2d 183; A. S. Rampell, Inc. v Hyster Co., 3 NY2d 369).

Defendants concede that the remaining issue raised on appeal has been rendered moot by amendment of the complaint. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1025, 635 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perfect-fit-glove-co-v-post-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack