Pearlgreen Corp. v. Chu
| Decision Date | 14 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2003-06878. |
| Parties | PEARLGREEN CORP., Respondent, v YAU CHI CHU, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.
The plaintiff commenced this action for permanent injunctive relief and damages alleging that the defendants, its former employees, misappropriated trade secrets and, among other things engaged in unfair competition. The plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction, inter alia, prohibiting the defendants from soliciting its customers. The defendants submitted opposition papers and their attorney appeared to argue the motion. The parties were directed to discuss a possible settlement, after which the defendants' attorney did not appear for a second calendar call. The Supreme Court granted the motion.
While the parties characterize the order as one entered on default, in fact, the motion was decided after the Supreme Court reviewed the opposition papers submitted by the defendants. The order enumerates those papers and discusses the plaintiff's and the defendants' contentions. Consequently, the order was not entered on default and, therefore, is an appealable order (see CPLR 5511).
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury absent injunctive relief, and a balancing of the equities in its favor (see Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862 [1990]; NCN Co. v Cavanagh, 215 AD2d 737 [1995]). Since the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success, the Supreme Court should have denied its motion.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, it did not demonstrate that the defendants were bound by a nonsolicitation agreement. In the absence of a restrictive covenant, an employee may freely compete with a former employer "unless trade secrets are involved or fraudulent methods are employed" (Walter Karl, Inc. v Wood, 137 AD2d 22, 27 [1988]; see Starlight Limousine Serv. v Cucinella, 275 AD2d 704, 705 [2000]; NCN Co. v Cavanagh, supra). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Mfg. Co. v. Young
...Assoc. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303, supra; Island Sports Physical Therapy v. Burns, 84 A.D.2d 878, supra; Pearlgreen Corp v. Yau Chi Chu, 8 AD3d 460, 778 N.Y.S.2d 516 [2d Dept 2004] ; Falco v. Parry, 6 AD3d 1138, 775 N.Y.S.2d 675 [2d Dept 2004] ). However, a former employee is not entitled t......
-
McKinnon Doxsee Agency, Inc. v. Gallina
...compete with a former employer " ‘unless trade secrets are involved or fraudulent methods are employed’ " ( Pearlgreen Corp. v. Yau Chi Chu , 8 A.D.3d 460, 461, 778 N.Y.S.2d 516, quoting Walter Karl, Inc. v. Wood , 137 A.D.2d 22, 27, 528 N.Y.S.2d 94 ). Unfair competition encompasses "[t]he ......
-
Lazaro v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
...Ave., LP v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 65 AD3d 1051, 886 N.Y.S.2d 41 [2d Dept 2009] ; Pearlgreen Corp. v. Yau Chi Chu, 8 AD3d 460, 778 N.Y.S.2d 516 [2d Dept 2004] ). A movant must satisfy each requirement with “clear and convincing evidence” (County of Suffolk v. Givens, 106 AD3d 943, 9......
-
Huntington Vill. Dental, PC v. Rathbauer
...Fourth Ave., LP v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 65 AD3d 1051, 886 N.Y.S.2d 41 [2d Dept 2009]; Pearlgreen Corp. v. Yau Chi Chu, 8 AD3d 460, 778 N.Y.S.2d 516 [2d Dept 2004] ). The decision to grant a preliminary injunction is committed to the sound discretion of the court ( see Tatum v. New......
-
Table of Cases
...PartyLite Gifts, Inc., v. Swiss Colony Occasions, 2006 WL 2370338 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2006), 157n24 Pearlgreen Corp. v. Yau Chi Chu, 778 N.Y.S.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004), 163, 189n5 Peat Marwick Main & Co. v. Haass, 818 S.W.2d 381 (Tex. 1991), 100 Peggy Lawton Kitchens, Inc. v. Hogan, 46......
-
Remedies for Trade Secret Misappropriation
...653, 660-662 (Tex. App. 2000). New York state courts apply the four traditional factors. See, e.g., Pearlgreen Corp. v. Yau Chi Chu , 778 N.Y.S.2d 516, 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) (“A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable in......