Sil-Flo, Inc. v. Mott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sil-Flo, Inc. v. Mott

53 A.D.2d 625, 384 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13327

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

DecidedJune 7, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 625 (Sil-Flo, Inc. v. Mott) 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

Sil-Flo, Inc. v. Mott, 53 A.D.2d 625, 384 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to enjoin defendant from using plaintiff’s "proprietary information and confidential business information”, including plaintiff’s customer list, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 15, 1976, which, after a hearing, (1) denied its motion for a preliminary injunction and (2) vacated a temporary restraining order. Order affirmed, with costs. The proof adduced by plaintiff to support its claim of a secret process and a confidential customer list was properly held by Special Term to be insufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction. The issues should be resolved at a trial. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to enjoin defendant from using plaintiff’s "proprietary information and confidential business information”, including plaintiff’s customer list, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 15, 1976, which, after a hearing, (1) denied its motion for a preliminary injunction and (2) vacated a temporary restraining order. Order affirmed, with costs. The proof adduced by plaintiff to support its claim of a secret process and a confidential customer list was properly held by Special Term to be insufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction. The issues should be resolved at a trial. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 625, 384 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sil-flo-inc-v-mott-nyappdiv-1976.