From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Epstein Eng'g, P.C. v. Cataldo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 6, 2015
124 A.D.3d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

01-06-2015

EPSTEIN ENGINEERING, P.C., Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. Thomas CATALDO, et al., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents, Steven Gregorio, Defendant.

Jane M. Myers, P.C., Central Islip (James E. Robinson of counsel), for appellants-respondents. Warshaw Burstein, LLP, New York (Bruce H. Wiener of counsel), for respondent-appellant.


Jane M. Myers, P.C., Central Islip (James E. Robinson of counsel), for appellants-respondents. Warshaw Burstein, LLP, New York (Bruce H. Wiener of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered October 21, 2013, which denied plaintiff's motion for renewal and reargument to the extent it sought to renew certain discovery motions decided by an order, same court (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered October 3, 2012, granted the motion as to reargument of those motions, and, upon reargument, vacated the portion of the order that directed plaintiff to respond to demands for discovery enabling defendants to determine its lost profits, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered October 22, 2013 which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants Thomas Cataldo and Cataldo Engineering, P.C.'s motion to dismiss either the complaint or plaintiff's claim for lost profits for failure to respond to discovery demands for financial statements and tax returns, and granted plaintiff's cross motion for a corresponding protective order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff may elect to measure its damages in this unfair competition action by reference to the profits made by defendants from clients or business opportunities diverted from plaintiff (see Wolff v. Wolff, 67 N.Y.2d 638, 499 N.Y.S.2d 665, 490 N.E.2d 532 [1986] ; Western Elec. Co. v. Brenner, 41 N.Y.2d 291, 295, 392 N.Y.S.2d 409, 360 N.E.2d 1091 [1977] ; Bon Temps Agency v. Greenfield, 184 A.D.2d 280, 584 N.Y.S.2d 824 [1st Dept.1992], lv. dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 759, 594 N.Y.S.2d 718, 610 N.E.2d 391 [1992] ; Maritime Fish Prods. v. World–Wide Fish Prods., 100 A.D.2d 81, 91, 474 N.Y.S.2d 281 [1st Dept.1984], appeal dismissed 63 N.Y.2d 675 [1984] ; Gassman & Gassman v. Salzman, 112 A.D.2d 82, 491 N.Y.S.2d 641 [1st Dept.1985], appeal dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 758, 497 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 488 N.E.2d 131 [1985] ; B.W. King, Inc. v. McAulay, 24 A.D.2d 444, 260 N.Y.S.2d 995 [1st Dept.1965] ; Dorville Corp. v. Jackson, 278 App.Div. 796, 104 N.Y.S.2d 161 [1st Dept.1951], affd. 305 N.Y. 665, 112 N.E.2d 764 [1953] ).


Summaries of

Epstein Eng'g, P.C. v. Cataldo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 6, 2015
124 A.D.3d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Epstein Eng'g, P.C. v. Cataldo

Case Details

Full title:EPSTEIN ENGINEERING, P.C., Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. Thomas…

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

Date published: Jan 6, 2015

Citations

124 A.D.3d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
1 N.Y.S.3d 38

Citing Cases

Calltrol Corp. v. Loxysoft AB

“To be sure, courts may award a defendant's unjust gains as a proxy for compensatory damages in an unfair…

Indeck Energy Servs., Inc. v. Merced Capital, L.P.

The claim might have been independently necessary and viable were there no contract that prohibited…