Opinion
March 20, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.).
A patron of a beauty salon owned and operated by the defendant Salt Pepper claims injuries sustained after two hair products were applied to her scalp. The defendant Soft Sheen is the manufacturer of the products involved and contends that the injuries, if any, resulted not from a deficient product but from the misapplication of its hair care formula. The owner of the beauty salon contends that the injuries, if any, were due to a deficient product.
The defendant Soft Sheen contends that the court at Special Term Part 8A erred in granting the defendant-cross-appellant's (Salt Pepper) motion to discover the hair care formula, because it is a trade secret.
Salt Pepper has already been given a list of the ingredients used in the two products, and what is further sought is the actual combination and percentage. However, there has been no showing that Salt Pepper has attempted by alternative means to analyze the products which they have been using or had a chemist consider the formulation of the ingredients. Where a trade secret is involved, until all other possibilities have been exhausted, the trade secret need not be disclosed even though subject to a confidentiality restriction. (See, Riteoff Inc. v. Contact Indus., 43 A.D.2d 731, 732; cf. Glenmark, Inc. v. Carity, 22 A.D.2d 680, appeal dismissed 15 N.Y.2d 956.)
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Ross, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.