Automation Graphics Inc. v Candid Litho Print., Ltd
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 22, 2012
Supreme Court, New York County
Automation Graphics Inc., Plaintiff,
against
Candid Litho Printing, Ltd and HOWARD WEINSTEIN, Its Corporate Officer and Individually, Defendants.
104338/11
Savitt Law Firm, PLLC,
by Richard P. Savitt, Esq.,
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
460 West 34th Street
New York, NY 1001
(917) 414-2523
Spizz & Cooper
Attorneys for the Defendant
114 Old Country Road
Mineola, NY 11501
(516) 747-8877
Manuel J. Mendez, J.
Upon a reading of the foregoing cited papers, it is ordered that the motion by plaintiff for summary judgment is denied, the cross-motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.
In this action for tortuous interfrence with contract plaintiff moves for summary judgment against the defendants. Plaintiff alleges that defendants tortuously interfered with non-disclosure and non-competition agreements it had with two former employees, that defendants hired the former employees with the intention of obtaining confidential lists of clients and prices in order to compete against plaintiff and outbid [*2]plaintiff for business. In support of its motion plaintiff provides copies of the agreements signed by the former employees which prevent them from disclosing confidential information obtained through their employment with plaintiff.
Defendants cross-move for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff is collaterally estopped from re-litigating this issue. Defendants claim, and provide proof, that plaintiff filed an action in New York County Civil Court under Index number 045360 CV 2010 against its former employees. In the Civil Court action the Hon. Andrea Masley determined the issues against plaintiff and dismissed the complaint. Judge Masley found the covenants not to compete unenforceable and the client lists not to be confidential trade secrets.
Plaintiff did not appear at oral argument on its motion for summary judgment.
In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the proponent must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, through admissible evidence, eliminating all material issues of fact (Klein v. City of New York, 89 NY2d 833; Ayotte v. Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062; Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320). Once the moving party has satisfied these standards, the burden shifts o the opponent to rebut that prima facie showing, by producing contrary evidence in admissible form, sufficient to require a trial of material factual issues (Kaufman v. Silver, 90 NY2d 204; Amatulli v. Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525; Iselin & Co. V. Mann Judd Landau, 71 NY2d 420). In determining the motion, the court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (SSBS Realty Corp. v. Public Service Mut. Ins. Co., 253 AD2d 583; Martin v. Briggs, 235 AD2d 192).
Plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants, on the other hand, have made out a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In support of their cross-motion they annexed copies of Judge Masley's decision in the Civil Court action where the issues were decided against the plaintiff. Defendants correctly argue that where identical issues have been decided in a previous action against a party, the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents that party from re-litigating those same issues.
This action has identical issues with the one decided by Judge Masley in Civil Court. Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the Civil Court action. The Civil Court action decided the issues in favor of defendants and against the plaintiff. Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from re-litigating these issues (Marx v. Kinney System, Inc., 236 AD2d 336, 654 N.Y.S.2d 20 [1st Dept., 1997]; Amica Mutual Insurance v. Jones, 85 AD2d 727, 446 N.Y.S.2d 820 [2nd Dept., 1981]). [*3]
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion by plaintiff for summary judgment is denied, and it is further,
ORDERED, that defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed with costs and disbursements to defendants as taxed by the Clerk upon the submission of an appropriate bill of costs, and it is further,
ORDERED, that the clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated:May 22, 2012Manuel J. Mendez, J.S.C.
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.
