Case ID: ad2d_26/html/0891-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fourth Department,
    October, 1966
    (October 20, 1966)
    Bernard Rooney et al., Respondents, v. Stanley Hunter et al., Defendants, and Stewart Hall Chemical Corporation, Inc., Appellant.
   Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party, and without prejudice to renewing the motion upon proper papers. Memorandum: The statement of appellant’s attorney, made upon information and belief, that the contents of appellant’s product is a trade secret, is insufficient to establish such fact (Cohen v. Pannia, 7 A D 2d 886). The allegations of respondents’ complaint sufficiently show the materiality and necessity of disclosure of the contents of appellant’s product. “ A liberal and practical view should be taken of what is necessary. There is so much merit in a disclosure of the facts in advance of trial that it should be allowed wherever legitimately sought.” (Marie Dorros, Inc. v. Dorros Bros., 274 App. Div. 11, 13-14.) The fact that the information sought is available from sources other than appellant is not alone reason for denying the disclosure (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, New York Civil Practice, par. 3101.09). It may well be that appellant on another motion could establish its claim that the content of its product is a trade secret, and in such case it would be entitled to reasonable protection against disclosure thereof. (Drake v. Herrman, 261 N. Y. 414, 418; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, New York Civil Practice, par. 3101.10; 17 ALR 2d 383.) Williams, P. J. concurs in result. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying defendant’s motion for a protective order.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ.