From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Starlight Limousine Service v. Cucinella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 13, 2000
275 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued May 15, 2000.

September 13, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of duty and wrongful interference with business relations, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated October 13, 1999, which granted the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Paul Savad, Nanuet, N.Y. (Susan Corcoran Cooper of counsel), for appellants.

Fenster Weiss, New City, N.Y. (Laura G. Weiss of counsel), for respondent Louis Cucinella and PFL Limousine Service, Inc.

Dorfman, Lynch Knoebel, Nyack, N.Y. (Dennis E. A. Lynch of counsel), for respondents James Gensel and Antique Limousine Service, Inc.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment. Solicitation of an entity's customers by a former employee or independent contractor is not actionable unless the customer list could be considered a trade secret, or there was wrongful conduct by the employee or independent contractor, such as physically taking or copying files or using confidential information (see, WMW Mech. Co. v. Koerber AG, 240 A.D.2d 400; Amana Express Intl. v. Pier-Air Intl., 211 A.D.2d 606; Heldman v. Douglas, 33 A.D.2d 695). The defendants engaged in no wrongful conduct and the plaintiffs did not establish that their customer list constitutes a confidential trade secret.

"[A] trade secret must first of all be secret" (Ashland Mgt. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395, 407). The record demonstrates that the plaintiffs failed to take any measures to require the defendants to guard the secrecy of the customer list during the defendants' service with the plaintiffs, or to prevent the defendants from using the information contained in the customer list once they left the plaintiffs' service (see, Delta Filter Corp. v. Morin, 108 A.D.2d 991; Wiener v. Lazard Freres Co., 241 A.D.2d 114). Further, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' expenditures of time and money in compiling the customer list, this type of information can be acquired with no extraordinary effort from nonconfidential sources and therefore is not entitled to trade secret protection (see, Leo Silfen, Inc. v. Cream, 29 N.Y.2d 387; WMW Mach. Co. v. Koerber AG., supra; American Executive Limousine Serv. v. Nudo, 122 A.D.2d 755).


Summaries of

Starlight Limousine Service v. Cucinella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 13, 2000
275 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Starlight Limousine Service v. Cucinella

Case Details

Full title:STARLIGHT LIMOUSINE SERVICE, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. LOUIS…

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

Date published: Sep 13, 2000

Citations

275 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
713 N.Y.S.2d 195

Citing Cases

Island Sports Physical Therapy v. Kane

In general, an employee may solicit an employer's customers only when the employment relationship has been…

Island Sports Physical Therapy v. Burns

In general, an employee may solicit an employer's customers only when the employment relationship has been…