Lepel High Frequency Labs. v. Capita
| Decision Date | 07 July 1938 |
| Citation | 278 N.Y. 661,16 N.E.2d 392 |
| Parties | LEPEL HIGH FREQUENCY LABORATORIES, Incorporated, Respondent, v. Emil R. CAPITA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 253 App.Div. 799, 2 N.Y.S.2d 628.
Action by Lepel High Frequency Laboratories, Incorporated, against Emil R. Capita. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of practical and experimental research in the field of high frequency electricity. Its products are distinguished from those of all other manufacturers in that it is the sole manufacturer of short wave electro-medical equipment in the United States, employing Spark Gap principle as a means of converting electricity from a state of low frequency into high frequency. The action was brought under an oral contract of employment to restrain defendant employee from entering into competitive employment for one year, from forever using any knowledge and skill gained during the course of his employment, and to compel him to assign to the plaintiff all of defendant's inventions and patents. The period of employment under the contract expired March 31, 1930, and the parties continued without a contract for seven years thereafter. On December 29 and 30, 1936, the defendant against requested a more equitable interest in the company whereupon he was discharged. The defendant then went into the bombarder field with the Echo High Frequency Company and worked independently of the plaintiff for about three months without any objection.
The defendant claimed that there was insufficient evidence as matter of law to sustain the finding of the existence of the oral contract and that the statute of frauds was a complete defense because the alleged oral contract could not be performed within one year.
From a judgment of the Appellate Division, 253 App.Div. 799, 2 N.Y.S.2d 628, affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals, after his motion for leave to appeal or for reargument was denied by the Appellate Division, 253 App.Div. 880, 2 N.Y.S.2d 793.
Affirmed.
Irving Mariash, of New York City, for appellant.
Newman, Hauser & Teitler, of New York City (Samuel B. Newman and Samuel L. Teitler, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Austin
...Id.; see Carpenter & Hughes v. De Joseph, 10 N.Y.2d 925, 926, 224 N.Y.S.2d 9, 179 N.E.2d 854 (1961); Lepel High Frequency Lab., Inc. v. Capita, 278 N.Y. 661, 16 N.E.2d 392 (1938). Therefore, the second prong of the test is also Austin attempts to analogize her case with certain New York App......
-
Purchasing Associates, Inc. v. Weitz
...the employee's use or disclosure of his former employer's trade secrets, processes or formulae (see, e. g., Lepel High Frequency Laboratories v. Capita, 278 N.Y. 661, 16 N.E.2d 392; Clark Paper & Mfg. Co. v. Stenacher, 236 N.Y. 312, 140 N.E. 708, 29 A.L.R. 1325; National Starch Products v. ......
-
McKay v. Communispond, Inc.
...such a showing, the Court notes that the agreement would be barred by the Statute of Frauds. See Lepel High Frequency Laboratories v. Capita, 278 N.Y. 661, 16 N.E.2d 392 (1938) (per curiam). The Court further notes that the restrictive covenant in question is not one to restrain the use of ......
-
Greenwich Mills Co., Inc. v. Barrie House Coffee Co., Inc.
...agreement (see Town & Country House & Home Serv. v. Newbery, 3 N.Y.2d 554, 170 N.Y.S.2d 328, 147 N.E.2d 724; Lepel High Frequency Labs. v. Capita, 278 N.Y. 661, 16 N.E.2d 392). At the other extreme, a broad noncompetition covenant, as opposed to a less restrictive nonsolicitation covenant, ......