Equity Now, Inc. v Wall St. Mtge. Bankers, Ltd.

Annotate this Case
Equity Now, Inc. v Wall St. Mtge. Bankers, Ltd. 2012 NY Slip Op 06373 Decided on September 27, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on September 27, 2012
Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels, Román, JJ.
8115 104044/07

[*1]Equity Now, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Wall Street Mortgage Bankers, Ltd., doing business as Power Express Mortgage Bankers, Defendant-Appellant, Power Express Mortgage, Ltd., et al., Defendants.




Jaroslawicz & Jaros LLC, New York (David Tolchin of
counsel), for appellant.
Stewart Occhipinti, LLP, New York (Charles A. Stewart III of
counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered September 9, 2011, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarding plaintiff damages as against defendant Wall Street Mortgage Bankers, Ltd. (Power Express), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The evidence at trial established that defendant Trejo was aided and abetted by Power Express in misappropriating trade secrets and breaching his fiduciary duty to his former employer by physically taking the lists that were plaintiff's property, refusing to return them in response to plaintiff's demands, and using plaintiff's proprietary information on behalf of Power Express (see Leo Silfen, Inc. v Cream, 29 NY2d 387, 392-393 [1972], Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 125 [1st Dept 2003]).

Plaintiff was entitled to damages for the profits it lost as a result of defendant's conduct [*2](Hertz Corp. v Avis, Inc., 106 AD2d 246, 251 [1st Dept 1985]).

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.