From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arthur J. Gallagher Co. of N.Y. v. Klymenko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 16, 1998
248 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 16, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for a preliminary injunction is denied.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that information regarding its customer complaints is of such a nature as to entitle this information to trade secret protection ( see, Ashland Mgt. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395; Reed, Roberts Assocs. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303; NCN Co. v. Cavanagh, 215 A.D.2d 737). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant divulged or used such information after he left the plaintiff's employ ( see, Cool Insuring Agency v. Rogers, 125 A.D.2d 758). The plaintiff has not shown sufficient proof that the defendant contacted any of the plaintiff's current employees. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was not entitled to a preliminary injunction ( see, NCN Co. v. Cavanagh, supra; Walter Karl, Inc. v. Wood, 137 A.D.2d 22; see also, Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860).

Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Arthur J. Gallagher Co. of N.Y. v. Klymenko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 16, 1998
248 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Arthur J. Gallagher Co. of N.Y. v. Klymenko

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., Respondent, v. VICTOR KLYMENKO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 16, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 886

Citing Cases

William M. Blake Agency, Inc. v. Leon

In particular, the plaintiff did not show that the activities of the appellant, Karen Leon, its former…

Gagnon Bus Co. v. Vallo Transportation, Ltd.

The burden of proof is on the movant to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the prospect of…