From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Advanced Aerofoil Technologies AG v. MissionPoint Capital Partners LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 30, 2016
140 A.D.3d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

06-30-2016

ADVANCED AEROFOIL TECHNOLOGIES AG, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MISSIONPOINT CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, Defendant–Respondent.

Cole Schotz P.C., New York (James T. Kim of counsel), for appellant. William F. Sheehan of the bar of the District of Columbia and State of Maryland, admitted pro hac vice, Barnesville, MD, for respondent.


Cole Schotz P.C., New York (James T. Kim of counsel), for appellant.

William F. Sheehan of the bar of the District of Columbia and State of Maryland, admitted pro hac vice, Barnesville, MD, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered April 23, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of precluding plaintiff from claiming that any of its confidential information was misappropriated and that nonparty Flowcastings, GmbH, is its direct competitor, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly determined that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars plaintiff from litigating two factual issues that were determined in a prior arbitration proceeding commenced by plaintiff, namely, whether any of plaintiff's confidential information was misappropriated and whether nonparty Flowcastings was its direct competitor (see Kaufman v. Eli Lilly & Co., 65 N.Y.2d 449, 455, 492 N.Y.S.2d 584, 482 N.E.2d 63 [1985] ). That the instant action arises out of a nondisclosure agreement between plaintiff and defendant while the arbitration was held in connection with an agreement between plaintiff and its former employees is of no consequence. Plaintiff's core claim is the same in both: that confidential information was wrongly taken from it and used to start a competing company.

Since plaintiff is the party sought to be collaterally estopped, it is of no consequence that defendant was not a party to the arbitration (3 E. 54th St. N.Y., LLC v. Patriarch Partners Agency Servs. LLC, 110 A.D.3d 516, 972 N.Y.S.2d 549 [1st Dept.2013] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find the unavailing. MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, GESMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Advanced Aerofoil Technologies AG v. MissionPoint Capital Partners LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 30, 2016
140 A.D.3d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Advanced Aerofoil Technologies AG v. MissionPoint Capital Partners LLC

Case Details

Full title:ADVANCED AEROFOIL TECHNOLOGIES AG, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MISSIONPOINT…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 30, 2016

Citations

140 A.D.3d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
33 N.Y.S.3d 723
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 5231

Citing Cases

Batilo v. Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home Co.

Nevertheless, given the arbitrator's detailed findings that plaintiff's work performance was unsatisfactory,…