7, 19-20 (1924) (“wrong to be redressed is not the misappropriation of his property” but rather “the reduction of the profits of his business through the unfair competition of his associate who has turned out to be a rival”). Consistent with the principles set forth above, the damage awards in many of CSS’s cases were simply based on the 14 facts and evidence presented in those actions. See, e.g., Hertz Corp. v. Avis, Inc., 485 N.Y.S.2d 51, 54 (1st Dep’t 1985) (refusing to order discovery of Avis’s financial records, “[which] would be relevant only to establish Avis’ profits, which in turn would be relevant only as a measure of Hertz’s lost profits” because “Hertz has disclaimed any loss of profits as a result of Avis’s action”); Downes v. Culbertson, 275 N.Y.S. 233, 247 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Ctny. 1934 (refusing to award damages for false statements about plaintiffs’ book because “[n]o evidence was offered connecting the decline in sales with the acts of the defendants”); Santa’s Workshop, Inc. v. Sterling, 153 N.Y.S.2d 839, 844 (3d Dep’t 1956) (finding it “unnecessary to consider the extent of defendant’s increased profits” because there was “a substantial dispute between the parties as to the defendant’s profits”). Undoubtedly there are some New York cases – including some cited above – in which the court has stated that the damages awarded must have some connection to the plaintiff’s losses.

cv-0450, 2014 WL 4954161 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2014) .............................. 35 Rasmussen & Assoc., Inc. v. Kalitta Flying Serv., Inc., 132 F.3d 39 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................ 37 Ronson Art Metal Works, Inc. v. Gibson Lighter Mfg. Co., 3 A.D.2d 227 (1st Dep’t 1957) ............................................ 15, 18, 20, 21, 28, 32 Rose Assocs. v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 262 A.D.2d 68 (1st Dep’t 1999) ......................................................................... 50 Ross v. Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 478 (2007) ............................................................................... 12, 27, 42 Matter of Rothko’s Estate, 43 N.Y.2d 305 (1977) ......................................................................................... 24 Salsbury Labs., Inc. v. Merieux Labs., Inc., 735 F. Supp. 1555 (M.D. Ga. 1989) ................................................................... 40 Santa’s Workshop, Inc. v. Sterling, 2 A.D.2d 262 (3d Dep’t 1956) ............................................................................ 16 Sharapata v. Town of Islip, 56 N.Y.2d 332 (1982) ............................................................................. 12, 27, 42 Slingerland v. International Contracting Co., 169 N.Y. 60 (1901) ............................................................................................. 24 x Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 N.Y.2d 43 (1999) ..................................................................................... 19, 24 Sonoco Prods. Co. v. Johnson, 23 P.3d 1287 (Colo. 2001) ................................................................ 34, 39, 41, 51 Sperry Rand Corp. v. A-T-O, Inc., 447 F.2d 1387 (4th Cir. 1971) ............................................................................ 35 State v. Barclays Bank of N.Y., N.A., 76 N.Y.2d 533 (1990) ......................................................................................... 26 Story Parchment Co. v. Pat

; Electrolux Corp. v. Val-Worth, Inc., 6 N.Y.2d 556, 571, 190 N.Y.S.2d 977, 989 (1959) (reversing an award of defendant’s profits because there was no proof that defendant’s sales were diverted from plaintiff). Case 3:03-cv-00222-JBA Document 300 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 14 of 20 13  Santa’s Workshop, Inc. v. Sterling, 2 A.D.2d 262, 266-67, 153 N.Y.S.2d 839, 844 (3d Dep’t 1956), aff’d, 3 N.Y.2d 757, 163 N.Y.S.2d 986 (1957) (reversing an award of defendant’s profits because “a large part of the increased number of customers of the defendant’s facility . . . would not have patronized the plaintiff, even if the defendant had not engaged in his unfair competitive practice”).  E. W. Bruno Co. v. Friedberg, 21 A.D.2d at 341, 250 N.Y.S.2d at 192 (reversing an award of defendant’s profits because the record did not support “the trial court’s assumption that the profits defendants made are necessarily ‘a valid measure’ of those plaintiff would have made”).