Carpenter & Hughes v. De Joseph

• Decision Date: 30 March 1961
• Citation: 213 N.Y.S.2d 860,13 A.D.2d 611
• Parties: CARPENTER & HUGHES, Appellant-Respondent, v. Henry DE JOSEPH, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 860

213 N.Y.S.2d 860

13 A.D.2d 611

CARPENTER & HUGHES, Appellant-Respondent, v. Henry DE JOSEPH, Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 30, 1961.

Costello, Cooney & Fearon, Syracuse (George R. Fearon, Syracuse, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

James C. Tormey, Syracuse, for respondent-appellant.

Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, McCLUSKY, and HENRY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM.

Special Term correctly determined that defendant should be restrained from soliciting the business of plaintiff's customers and revealing their identity or disclosing other information relating to ophthalmic dispensing of such customers, other than from the medical profession. The granting of any further restraint would be more extensive than required by the legitimate interests of plaintiff. There is no proof herein that special skills, trade secrets, or other valuable business properties not enjoined are here involved. McCall Co. v. Wright, 198 N.Y. 143, 91 N.E. 516, 31 L.R.A.,N.S., 249; Duro-Test Corporation v. Donaghy, 9 A.D.2d 860, 193 N.Y.S.2d 121; Paramount Pad Co. v. Baumrind, 4 N.Y.2d 393,175 N.Y.S. 809. (Cross appeals from order of Onondaga Trial Term, dismissing the petition and complaint, but restraining defendant from soliciting the business of plaintiff's customers.)

Judgment (erroneously termed order) modified by deleting the first sentence of the first ordering paragraph and as so modified unanimously affirmed without costs of these appeals to either party. A certain conclusion of law disapproved and reversed, and new findings of fact made.