Ferber v. Sterndent Corp.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1979 |
| Citation | 422 N.Y.S.2d 131,73 A.D.2d 590 |
| Parties | , 209 U.S.P.Q. 543 Jack R. FERBER, Respondent, v. STERNDENT CORPORATION et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York City (Douglas M. Kraus and Miriam L. Siroky, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Bader & Bader, White Plains (I. Walton Bader, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before DAMIANI, J. P., and O'CONNOR, LAZER and RABIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for the alleged illegal use by defendants of "confidentially disclosed ideas and invention", defendants Sterndent Corporation and Milton Solomon appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 8, 1979, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint in its entirety, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint to the extent that it seeks damages in excess of $5,000.
Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, the branch of appellants' motion which seeks summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety is granted, and the action is severed and the complaint is dismissed as to them.
Although there is an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff made the alleged January, 1968 disclosure, the evidence establishes as a matter of law: (1) that plaintiff's idea and device were not novel; (2) that in any case they became part of the public domain by virtue of the subsequent Gibson and Alessi patents and the Ishikawa article (see Platzman v. American Totalisator Co., 45 N.Y.2d 910, 411 N.Y.S.2d 230, 383 N.E.2d 876); (3) that Sterndent's device is demonstrably different from plaintiff's; and (4) that Sterndent (Weber) did not appropriate plaintiff's idea or device. We find that close examination of the Park French, Kenneth Roll and Warren A. Sklar affidavits and the documentation annexed thereto clearly demonstrates that plaintiff's contentions herein as to the novelty, public domain and appropriation issues have no evidentiary support and that summary judgment must be granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd.
...that a breach of confidentiality action requires. See Lemelson v. Kellogg Co., 440 F.2d 986, 987 (2d Cir.1971); Ferber v. Sterndent Corp., 73 A.D.2d 590, 422 N.Y.S.2d 131 (1979), aff'd 51 N.Y.2d 782, 433 N.Y.S.2d 85, 412 N.E.2d 1311 (1980). The publication of the design removed it from the ......
-
Surplus Equipment, Inc. v. Xerox Corp.
...misappropriated idea was, indeed, novel (see, Ferber v. Sterndent Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 782, 433 N.Y.S.2d 85, 412 N.E.2d 1311, affg 73 A.D.2d 590, 422 N.Y.S.2d 131; Downey v. General Foods Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 56, 334 N.Y.S.2d 874, 286 N.E.2d 257, revg 37 A.D.2d 250, 323 N.Y.S.2d 578). We conclude, ......
-
Ferber v. Sterndent Corp.
...Siroky, New York City, for respondents. OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, 73 A.D.2d 590, 422 N.Y.S.2d 131, with As the court below found, plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to support his claim that the idea which he disclosed to ......