Polychrome Corp. v. Lithotech Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Polychrome Corp. v. Lithotech Corp.

6 A.D.2d 892, 177 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5095

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.2d 892 (Polychrome Corp. v. Lithotech Corp.) 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

Polychrome Corp. v. Lithotech Corp., 6 A.D.2d 892, 177 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action against former employees and a corporation, which two of the former employees controlled and organized, and against others to enjoin the exploitation of trade secrets and other information, and for other relief, the appeal is from so much of an order as struck certain defenses from the answer as insufficient in law (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 109, subd. 6). The Special Term granted the motion on the ground that the allegations in the defenses were merely a repetition of denials already in the answer and provable thereunder. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The matters alleged in the defenses were provable under the denials in the answer. They did not tend to clarify the issues and appellants were not prejudiced by the granting of the motion. Under those circumstances, reversal is not required (Thomas-Mack v. Ursula Holding Corp., 5 A D 2d 837; Margon Corp. v. Dollac Corp., 3 A D 2d 845; see, e.g., Home Ins. Co. v. Gillespie Loading Co., 222 App. Div. 67; cf. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Technical Tape Corp., 3 A D 2d 759). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action against former employees and a corporation, which two of the former employees controlled and organized, and against others to enjoin the exploitation of trade secrets and other information, and for other relief, the appeal is from so much of an order as struck certain defenses from the answer as insufficient in law (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 109, subd. 6). The Special Term granted the motion on the ground that the allegations in the defenses were merely a repetition of denials already in the answer and provable thereunder. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The matters alleged in the defenses were provable under the denials in the answer. They did not tend to clarify the issues and appellants were not prejudiced by the granting of the motion. Under those circumstances, reversal is not required (Thomas-Mack v. Ursula Holding Corp., 5 A D 2d 837; Margon Corp. v. Dollac Corp., 3 A D 2d 845; see, e.g., Home Ins. Co. v. Gillespie Loading Co., 222 App. Div. 67; cf. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Technical Tape Corp., 3 A D 2d 759). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 892, 177 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polychrome-corp-v-lithotech-corp-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack