Siga Technologies, Inc. v. Fischetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siga Technologies, Inc. v. Fischetti

6 A.D.3d 299, 774 N.Y.S.2d 709, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4751

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

DecidedApril 22, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 299 (Siga Technologies, Inc. v. Fischetti) 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

Siga Technologies, Inc. v. Fischetti, 6 A.D.3d 299, 774 N.Y.S.2d 709, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered November 17, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There are issues of fact as to whether defendant breached the [300]*3002001 consulting agreement by failing to disclose and/or assign inventions, or by violation of confidentiality. As to proof of damages with “reasonable certainty” (Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 67 NY2d 257, 261 [1986]), there has been insufficient discovery. Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to determine the relationship between defendant and other businesses, the technologies presented by defendant to others, and the extent of lost licensing or other opportunities. A determination on whether damages are too speculative would be premature at this juncture (see Morris v Putnam Berkley, 259 AD2d 425, 426 [1999]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered November 17, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There are issues of fact as to whether defendant breached the [300]*3002001 consulting agreement by failing to disclose and/or assign inventions, or by violation of confidentiality. As to proof of damages with “reasonable certainty” (Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 67 NY2d 257, 261 [1986]), there has been insufficient discovery. Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to determine the relationship between defendant and other businesses, the technologies presented by defendant to others, and the extent of lost licensing or other opportunities. A determination on whether damages are too speculative would be premature at this juncture (see Morris v Putnam Berkley, 259 AD2d 425, 426 [1999]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 299, 774 N.Y.S.2d 709, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siga-technologies-inc-v-fischetti-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack