Opinion
3439.
Decided April 22, 2004.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered November 17, 2003, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt Mosle LLP, New York (Turner P. Smith of counsel), for appellant.
Kramer Levin Naftalis Frankel LLP, New York (Albert B. Chen of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner, JJ.
There are issues of fact as to whether defendant breached the 2001 consulting agreement by failing to disclose and/or assign inventions, or by violation of confidentiality. As to proof of damages with "reasonable certainty" ( Kenford Co. v. County of Erie, 67 N.Y.2d 257), there has been insufficient discovery. Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to determine the relationship between defendant and other businesses, the technologies presented by defendant to others, and the extent of lost licensing or other opportunities. A determination on whether damages are too speculative would be premature at this juncture ( see Morris v. Putnam Berkley, 259 A.D.2d 425, 426).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.