Polychrome Corp. v. Lithotech Corp.

• Decision Date: 14 July 1958
• Citation: 177 N.Y.S.2d 559,6 A.D.2d 892
• Parties: POLYCHROME CORPORATION, Respondent, v. LITHOTECH CORP., Louis V. Esposito, Bernard Cohen, Lillian Euler Zupko, Andrew Criscuolo, James Amoroso and Martin Birnbaum, Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 559

177 N.Y.S.2d 559

6 A.D.2d 892

POLYCHROME CORPORATION, Respondent, v. LITHOTECH CORP., Louis V. Esposito, Bernard Cohen, Lillian Euler Zupko, Andrew Criscuolo, James Amoroso and Martin Birnbaum, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 14, 1958.

James V. Altieri, New York City, for appellants.

Jerome N. Wanshel, New York City, for respondent.

Before NOLAN, P. J., and WENZEL, MURPHY, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action against former employees and a corporation, which two of the former employees controlled and organized, and against others to enjoin the exploitation of trade secrets and other information, and for other relief, the appeal is from so much of an order as struck certain defenses from the answer as insufficient in law (Rules of Civil Practice, rule 109, subd. 6). The Special Term granted the motion on the ground that the allegations in the defenses were merely a repetition of denials already in the answer and provable thereunder.

Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

The matters alleged in the defenses were provable under the denials in the answer. They did not tend to clarify the issues and appellants were not prejudiced by the granting of the motion. Under those circumstances, reversal is not required (Thomas-Mack, Inc., v. Ursula Holding Corp., 5 A.D.2d 837, 170 N.Y.S.2d 926; Margon Corp. v. Dollac Corp., 3 A.D.2d 845, 161 N.Y.S.2d 843; see. e. g., Home Ins. Co. v. Gillespie Loading Co., 222 App.Div. 67, 225 N.Y.S. 276; cf. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Technical Tape Corp., 3 A.D.2d 759, 160 N.Y.S.2d 100).