From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henderson v. Rep Tech, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 22, 1990
162 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

June 22, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we find that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish that plaintiff was a disloyal employee (see, Feiger v. Iral Jewelry, 41 N.Y.2d 928) and that he had exploited trade secrets. Consequently, the remedies of forfeiture, a permanent injunction, and the dismissal of plaintiff's claims were proper. We reject plaintiff's argument that the Referee exceeded the scope of the order of reference when he determined that plaintiff must reimburse defendant employer for all salary, commissions, and expenses the employer paid to plaintiff during the period of disloyalty. The compensation paid an employee during the period of disloyalty is a component of the profit for which an employee must account and is subject to forfeiture (see, Defler Corp. v. Kleeman, 19 A.D.2d 396, affd 19 N.Y.2d 694).


Summaries of

Henderson v. Rep Tech, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 22, 1990
162 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Henderson v. Rep Tech, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT F. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. REP TECH, INC., Respondent, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 22, 1990

Citations

162 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
557 N.Y.S.2d 224

Citing Cases

Ulico Cas. v. Wilson

Forfeiture of compensation will, however, be limited to the period of the disloyalty. ( See Maritime Fish…

RSSM CPA LLP v. Bell

Turning to damages, for breach of the duty of loyalty, an employee must account to his principal for secret…