Laro Maintenance Corp. v. Culkin

• Decision Date: 27 December 1999
• Citation: Laro Maintenance Corp. v. Culkin, 700 N.Y.S.2d 490, 267 A.D.2d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,071 LARO MAINTENANCE CORP., et al., respondents, v. John J. CULKIN, et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 490

700 N.Y.S.2d 490

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,071

LARO MAINTENANCE CORP., et al., respondents, v. John J. CULKIN, et al., appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 27, 1999.

Quadrino & Schwartz, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Evan S. Schwartz and Steven M. Connolly of counsel), for appellants.

Bracken & Margolin, LLP, Islandia, N.Y. (Linda U. Margolin, Olympia Gouvis, and William J. Graham of counsel), for respondents.

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, LEO F. McGINITY and NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unfair competition, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered September 2, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action in the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs Laro Maintenance Corp. and Laro Service Systems, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as Laro), provide maintenance services for buildings. The defendant John J. Culkin was the vice president of Laro's engineering department before he submitted his resignation on July 30, 1997, and the defendant Thomas Stackpole was Laro's regional project manager before he submitted his resignation on August 25, 1997. Culkin and Stackpole formed a competing corporation, the defendant C & S Building Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as C & S), on July 10, 1997.

The plaintiffs commenced this action in which they alleged, inter alia, that Culkin and Stackpole used confidential information to solicit Laro's customers and competed with Laro while they were still employed there. In January 1998, following a two-day hearing, the court issued a preliminary injunction which precluded the defendants from soliciting those customers which Culkin and Stackpole had serviced during their employment with Laro (see, Laro Maintenance Corp. v. Culkin, 255 A.D.2d 560, 681 N.Y.S.2d 79). The Supreme Court granted Laro's subsequent motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action in the complaint. We affirm.

With respect to the third cause of action, the evidence established that the defendants engaged in unfair competition through the use of Laro's trade secrets. The definition of a trade secret includes a " 'compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it' " (Ashland Mgt. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395, 407, 604 N.Y.S.2d 912, 624 N.E.2d 1007, quoting Restatement of Torts, § 757, comment b). Culkin...