Title: Ashland Management Incorporated v. Altair Investments NA, LLC

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 21  
Ashland Management Incorporated,
            Respondent,
        v.
Altair Investments NA, LLC, 
et al.
            Appellants.
David E. Gordon, for appellants.
Eric D. Grayson, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified,
without costs, by dismissing the first, second, third, fourth and
seventh causes of action to the extent they seek injunctive
relief or damages for defendants' misappropriation of client
lists or trade secrets prior to their resignation, and otherwise
- 2 -
No. 21
- 2 -
affirmed.  The certified question should be answered in the
negative.
The confidentiality agreements executed by defendants
did not prohibit them from soliciting plaintiff's clients or
contacting its business referrers after their termination of
employment.  Moreover, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue
of fact as to whether its customer lists constituted a trade
secret (see Leo Silfen, Inc. v Cream, 29 NY2d 387 [1972]) and
whether defendants improperly used plaintiff's performance data
or took any confidential customer information before leaving
plaintiff's employ.  But plaintiff did raise questions of fact
regarding whether defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
using plaintiff's time and resources to form a new business and
promote themselves while still working for plaintiff.  An issue
of fact also exists as to whether defendants improperly accessed
plaintiff's Federal Express account to discover client
information after their employment with plaintiff had ceased.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order modified, without costs, in accordance with the memorandum
herein and, as so modified, affirmed.  Certified question
answered in the negative.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided March 25, 2010