From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Atlantis Worldwide v. Benitez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 29, 2002
290 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

81N

January 29, 2002.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe III, J.), entered October 17, 2001, which denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

ANDREW G. LIPKIN, for plaintiff-appellant.

LISA SOLOMON, for defendants-respondents.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow, JJ.


The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction, since plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted and that the equities balance in its favor (see, W.T. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 517). Plaintiff has not made the showing requisite to the relief sought, that the names of the clients serviced by defendant employee while employed by plaintiff are entitled to trade secret protection, where the identities of those clients are readily ascertainable, or that the employee's services were unique or extraordinary (see, Reed, Roberts Assocs. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303, 308). Moreover, the balance of equities is in defendants' favor and irreparable harm has not been shown where money damages would fully compensate plaintiff for any lost profit attributable to defendant employee's complained of conduct.

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


Summaries of

Atlantis Worldwide v. Benitez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 29, 2002
290 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Atlantis Worldwide v. Benitez

Case Details

Full title:ATLANTIS WORLDWIDE, LTD., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. GARY BENITEZ, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Jan 29, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
736 N.Y.S.2d 591

Citing Cases

Trump v. Cheng

However, "irreparable harm has not been shown where money damages would fully compensate plaintiff. . . ."…

Sutton Madison v. 27 E. 65th St. Owners Corp.

It is well established that an applicant for injunctive relief must demonstrate (1) the likelihood of success…