Platzman v. American Totalisator Company, Inc.

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BREITEL
• Citation: Platzman v. American Totalisator Company, Inc., 411 N.Y.S.2d 230, 45 N.Y.2d 910 (N.Y. 1978)
• Decision Date: 18 September 1978
• Parties: , 383 N.E.2d 876 Michael M. PLATZMAN, Respondent, v. AMERICAN TOTALISATOR COMPANY, INC., Appellant, et al., Defendants. Michael M. PLATZMAN, Appellant, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Page 230

411 N.Y.S.2d 230

45 N.Y.2d 910, 383 N.E.2d 876

Michael M. PLATZMAN, Respondent, v. AMERICAN TOTALISATOR COMPANY, INC., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Michael M. PLATZMAN, Appellant, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Argued Sept. 18, 1978.

Michael M. Platzman, pro se, and Leonard H. King, Mineola, for Michael M. Platzman, appellant and respondent.

Harold James and Neal L. Rosenberg, New York City, for American Totalisator Company, Inc., appellant.

Sheldon Raab and Robert Jay Bernstein, New York City, for Computer Sciences Corporation, respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

On plaintiff's appeal the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, on the memorandum at the Appellate Division. 57 A.D.2d 753, 57 A.D.2d 755, 394 N.Y.S.2d 412, 560.

On the appeal of American Totalisator Company, Inc., the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and summary judgment granted dismissing the complaint as to American Totalisator. In his motion papers plaintiff tendered no evidentiary proof in support of his conclusory assertions that American Totalisator dealt with him individually rather than only as an officer-employee representative of Taller & Cooper, that he individually otherwise had a legally cognizable interest in the alleged system as against American Totalisator, or indeed that his system was different from that disclosed in the 1964 patent which thereby became public knowledge. For plaintiff to succeed in opposing the motion for summary judgment he must come forward with a tender of admissible proof sufficient to require a trial of...