Opinion
CA 01-01687
February 1, 2002.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Ontario County (Marks, J.), entered October 6, 2000, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment.
HARTER, SECREST EMERY LLP, ROCHESTER (A. PAUL BRITTON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
JAECKLE FLEISCHMANN MUGEL, LLP, ROCHESTER (RONALD J. KISICKI OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HAYES, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the cross motion and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on the cause of action alleging that defendants misappropriated trade secrets from plaintiff. The court erred in granting plaintiff's cross motion. Plaintiff alleges that defendants misappropriated trade secrets obtained by defendant Marvin Epling during the course of his employment with plaintiff's predecessor corporation and used those trade secrets in the development of an archery bow manufactured by defendant Seneca Outdoor, Inc. The parties' submissions, however, "are rife with questions of fact, including whether trade secrets or confidential matters are involved" ( Union Kol-Flo Corp. v. Basil, 64 A.D.2d 861; see, Ashland Mgt. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395, 407). We therefore modify the order by denying the cross motion. Defendants do not address in their brief the propriety of the court's denial of their motion, and thus any issue with respect to the denial of their motion is deemed abandoned ( see, Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984).