Opinion
March 26, 1962
In an action for injunctive relief and damages upon the ground that the defendants allegedly misappropriated and utilized the plaintiff's secret processing methods, the parties appeal as follows: (a) from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 10, 1959, as amended by its order dated December 23, 1959, granting plaintiff injunctive relief with respect to certain of its manufacturing processes and trade secrets and ordering a reference as to the amount of its damages; (b) from the decision of said court, rendered September 11, 1959 and filed September 15, 1959 ( Minnesota Min. Mfg. Co. v. Technical Tape Corp., 23 Misc.2d 671), as modified by its order dated December 9, 1959, upon which said judgment was thereafter entered; and (c) from the said order dated December 9, 1959: (1) All of said defendants other than Beyer appeal (a) from the whole of such judgment and decision except so much thereof as denied to plaintiff any relief with respect to the so-called "Alkabize Process"; and (b) from so much of said order dated December 9, 1959, as denied said defendants' motion, made pursuant to section 549 of the Civil Practice Act, to set aside the decision and for a new trial. (2) Plaintiff cross-appeals from said amended judgment and modified decision insofar as they fail to grant to it injunctive relief with respect to its so-called "Alkabize Process" and with respect to its other confidential manufacturing processes and trade secrets. Amended interlocutory judgment and order dated December 9, 1959, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of the learned Justice at Special Term ( Minnesota Min. Mfg. Co. v. Technical Tape Corp., supra). Appeals from decision dismissed, without costs. No appeal lies from a decision ( Gitter v. Schiff, 10 A.D.2d 974). Beldock, P.J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.