Harry R. Defler Corp. v. Kleeman

• Decision Date: 23 February 1967
• Citation: 278 N.Y.S.2d 883,225 N.E.2d 569,19 N.Y.2d 694
• Parties: , 225 N.E.2d 569 HARRY R. DEFLER CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Francis S. KLEEMAN et al., Appellants, and Edward G. Schneider, Jr., et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 883

278 N.Y.S.2d 883

19 N.Y.2d 694, 225 N.E.2d 569

HARRY R. DEFLER CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Francis S. KLEEMAN et al., Appellants, and Edward G Schneider, Jr., et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 23, 1967.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Erie County.

Miller, Farmelo & Stenger, Buffalo, Shea, Gallop, Climenko & Gould, New York City (Bruce A. Hecker, New York City, Neil R. Farmelo, Buffalo, and Edwin Margolis, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellants Francis and Virginia Kleeman.

Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in buying and selling industrial carbons and related products, sought an injunction and accounting of profits by defendant, Francis Kleeman, employed by plaintiff as its general manager from December, 1956 until February, 1960, defendant Edward Schneider, employed by plaintiff as a salesman from November, 1957 until September, 1958, defendants Virginia Kleeman and Patricia Schneider, the wives of the male defendants, and defendant Carchem Products Corp., a corporation organized by the individual defendants in May, 1958. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that both during and after the employment of the male defendants by plaintiff, they and their wives conspired to exploit plaintiff's secret customer and supplier lists and other confidential information which had been disclosed to the male defendants solely by reason of their employment, and that, through the corporate defendant, they diverted a major part of plaintiff's business from it, and that, in addition, defendant Francis Kleeman had violated an agreement, made by him as a condition of his employment, not to compete with plaintiff within a specified area for a period of three years following termination of his employment.

The Appellate Division found among other things that evidence was sufficient to establish a conspiracy involving all of the defendants, that they had exploited plaintiff's confidential information and solicited its customers, and that the information exploited by them fell within the category of data to which protection would be accorded without regard to the existence of an agreement not to compete. The Appellate Division concluded that plaintiff was entitled to (1) an injunction restraining defendants from (a) dealing with anyone who was a customer of plaintiff during the period of employment of Francis Kleeman, (b) dealing with anyone who was a supplier of plaintiff during that period, to the extent necessary to...