Court Opinion

ID: 9958773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:11:29.617899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:50.899818
License: Public Domain

Ramirez v Issa
               2024 NY Slip Op 31058(U)
                     March 28, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 521206/2023
                Judge: Leon Ruchelsman
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                               INDEX NO. 521206/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 326                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

           SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
           COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL PART 8
           ------ ----- ----- -- --- .--------------~x
           CESAR RAMIREZ and ADRIANA RODRIGUEZ,
           individually and as stockholders
           of MANHATTAN FARE CORP., and in the
           ri9ht of MANHATTAN FARE CORP.,
                                          Plaintiff,             Decision arid order

                          - against -                        Ir:idex No. 52120.6/2023

           MONEER ISSA, MANHATTAN FARE
           CORP. , and 431 FOOD MARKET CORP. ,
                                               Defendants,             March 2B, 2024
           - ~---------- ------------ --- -----------x
           PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN                     Motion Seq. #15 & #18

                 The defendants have moved seeking to enjoin the plaintiff

            from utilizing the company's customer list and intellectual

           property and to order the. plaintiff to return such intellectual

           property to the defendant.       The plaintiff opposes the motion.

            Papers were submitted by the parties anc:1 argume11ts held.         After

           reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the following

           determination.

                 As recorded i.n prior orders the defendant Manhattan Fare

           Corp.,    operated a   restaurant called Chef's Tabl.e at Brooklyn

            Fare, which is located at 431 west 37 th street, in New York

           County.      The plaintiff, Cesar Ramirez, was employed as an
           executive chef by the defendahts s~n~e 2009 and a~ of 2022

            received twenty-five of all profits rep;tesentin9 a twenty-five

            pe.rcent ownership .interest. in. Manh.3:ttan Fare Corp.    The

            pla:Lntiff.s ins ti tut;ed thig 1awsui t alleging that Ramir.ez was

            fired without any justification.      The de:E"endants an,swered and

                                              1 of 8
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                           INDEX NO. 521206/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 326                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

            asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaims that the

            plaintiff Rarttire·z and his wife, plaintiff Adriana Rodriguez

           engaged in theft and fraud and soug.ht to harm Manhattan Fare.

           The defendants now seek to enjoin the plaintiff from utilizing

            the customer list and the Irtstagrartt social media account of

           Chef's Table.    The defendants fear the plaintiff will utilize the

            information contained in the customer list and social media

           account to unfairly compete with the defendants.        The plaintiff

           opposes the motion arguing there is no basis for such an

            injunction and that in any event any injunction would curtail the

            plaintiff's free speech rights.

                                     Conclusions of Law

                    In relevant part, CPLR §6301 allows the court to issue a

           preliminary injunction "in any action ... where the plaintiff has

           demanded and would be entitled to a judgment r~straining

           defenda-nt from the commission or the continuance of an act,

           which,   if committed or continued during the penderi.c.y of the

           action, would produce injury to the plaintiff    0
                                                                (id).

                It is well established that "the party seeking      a preliminary
           inj11nction must demonstrate a probability of success on the

           merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absenpe of the

            injunction and a balance o.f the equitie.s in its favor"     (Nobu N.ex.t

            Door, LLC v.   Fine Arts Housing, Inc., 4 NY3d 839,    800 NYS2d, .48

                                              2

                                            2 of 8
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                             INDEX NO. 521206/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 326                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

            [2005], see also, Alexandruv. Pappas; 68 ,AD3d 690, 890 NYS2d 593

            [2d Dept., 2009]),     The Second Department has noted that "the

            remedy of granting a preliminary injunction is a drastic one

           which should be used sparingly" (Town .of Smithtown v. Carlson,

            204 AD2d 537,    614 NYS2d 18 [2d Dept,, 1994]).     Thus, the Second

            Department has been clear that the party seeking the drastic

            remedy of a preliminary injunction has the bu.rden o'f proving each

            Of the above noted elements "by Clear and c:onvincing evidence"

            (Liotta v. Matt one, 71 AD3d 7 41,. 900 NYS2d 62     [2d Dept.,
                                                                      .
                                                                            2010] ) .

                    Thus, a preliminc1ry injunction is proper where evidence has

            been presented that art individual is misappropriating trade

            secrets to harm or disadvantage the protector of the secrets

            (L. L   O'Connell Associates Ihc., v. Mcgetrit:k, 30 Mist:3d 1238 (A),

            961 NYS2d 359 [Bupreme Court Suffolk County 2012]) .         TO establish

            the plaintiff in this case has misappropriated trade secrets the

            defendants must present evidence that the plaintiff is in

            possession of trade secrets and that it utilized such trade

            secrets in breach of a duty of loyalty or as a result of

            discovery by improper means (see, Integrated Cash Management

            Services Inc,, v. Digital Transactions Inc.; 920 F2d 171 [2d Cir.

            1990]).     In P~rche~ Trad±ng Ltd., v.     Depersia, 2020 WL 764211

            [S.D.N,Y. 2020]. the court noted that "'a cu~torner list that
            contains such information as the identiti.es and preferences of

            cLient contacts' may.be a    1   protectable trade seo~etn   (id).   The

                                                  3

                                               3 of 8
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                              INDEX NO. 521206/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 326                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

            court explained that \'a trade secret may exist in a combination

            of characteristics and components, each of which, by itself is· in

            the public domain, but the unified process, design and operation
            Cif which,   in unique combination, af£ords a competitive advantage"

            (id).    Therefore, customer lists will qualify as trade secrets

            where the list is within the exclusive knowledge of the company

            and cannot be ''reaq.ily ascertained" by others in the industry
            without "extraordinary efforts" (Poller v. BioScrip Inc., 974

            F.Supp2d 204 [S.D.N.Y. 2013]).     However, contact information of

            customers that is ''little more than a compilation of publicly
            available information" are trot trade secrets (Art       &   Cook Inc. , v.

            Haber,   416 F.Supp3d 191 [E.D.N.Y. 2017]).   Moreover, information

            that could easily be recalled by the plaintiffs, if any, in their

            dealings with the same customers is not a trade secret.           As the

            court observed in Catalogue Service of Westchester Inc .• v.

            Henry, 107 AD2d 783, 484 NY.S2d 615 [2d Dept., 19B5]), ''remembered

            information as to specific needs and business habits of
            particular customers is not confidential."    ( id) .   Cases that have

            ·held customer lists are trade secrets where it would be difficult

            to acquire that information from other sources since they contain

            customer preferences, refers to such information that cannot

            ~imply be asked. of the customer (North Atlantic :tnstrurnerits Inc.,
            v .. Haber, 188 F3d 38 [2d. Cir 1.999]).   In instances where the

            cust:omer preferences are part of \\a long, difficult process to

                                               4

                                             4 of 8
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                                  INDEX NO. 521206/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 326                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

            educate and convert a prospective customer to the benefits               of the
            process" being- offered then such preferences; like the customer

            list itself may afford trade secret protection (see, Webcraft

            Techrioloqies Inc., v. Mccaw, 67 4 F. Supp. 10 39 [S. D.N .Y. 19:87] ) .

                    The defendants argue the customer information is

            proprietary and thus constitutes trade secrets for two reasons ..

            First, the customer list is priv-ate and only a handful of
            employees had access to it.         Second, the customer list did not

           mere1y contain a list of customers but included far more

            exclusive information.        Thus, the customer information includes

            "Iiotes and observations made by Company personnel about each

            customer's preferences and idiosyncrasies or special

            requirements" and can only be "reproduced through years of

           meticlllous effort as was invested by the Company and Issa over

           many years"       (Memorandum of Law in Support, Page 15 [NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 287]).       Indeed, Mr. Issa provided an affidavit wherein he

            stated that at his "direction, Manhattan Fare employees compiled

            a   confidential proprietary l i s t of Chef;s Table customers.           This

            list: is a computer file that includes customer contact

            information; financial informationi and individualized notes

            about each customer's preferences and ididsyncrasies, all of

           which information was t1pda-f:ed f:r:om time t.6 time and rnodi:rieci

            based on changes in customer base a:nd the customers' tastes and

            preference.sli    (see:, Aff:idavi t of Moneer. Issa, CJ[5   [NYSGEF D.oe~ No.

                                                    s

                                                 5 of 8
[* 5]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                                 INDEX NO. 521206/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 326                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

            285]).

                 Although the plaintiff's counsel questions the existence bf

            such a list there is no evidence presented by the plaintiffs

           themselves disputing its existence.          Moreover, while solicitation

           6f customers by a former employee is not barred absent a non.-

            solicitation clause (Abraham Zion C:orp., v. Lebow, 593 F.Supp.

            551 [S.D.N.Y. 1984]), a former employee, or anyone for that
           matter, may riot solicit utilizing a trade secret (North Atlantic

            Instruments, Inc., v. Haber, 188 F3d 88 [2d Cir. 1999 J ) .

           Considering all the evidence presented, the customer list in this

            case clearly ·qualifies as a trade secret.          Thus, the defendants

           have satisfied the first prong demonstrating a likelihood of

            success on the merits regarding the proprietary nature of the

            customer list.

                  Further, it is well settled that the loss of trade secrets

            cannot be measured in money damages because once a trade secret

            is lost it is lost ''forever'' (FMC Corp. v. Taiwan Tainan Giant

            Industrial Co .• · Ltd.,   730 F2d 61   [2d Cir.   1984]) .   Lastly,   the

            balance of equities ,favors the defendants.          Although the

            plaintiffs have not yet actively competed with the defendants, if

            and when they do so, they may not utilize the customer list of

           the defendant restaurant.        Consequently, the motion seeking an

            injunction prohibiting the plaintiffs from utilizing the customer
            list is granted.

                                               6 of 8
[* 6]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                          INDEX NO. 521206/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 326                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

                  Concerning the Instagram account of the restaurant, Mr. Issa

            states that he created the account under the name Chef's Table

            and that over time the operation of the account as well as the

            pas-Swords were given to plaintiff Adriana Rodriguez (see,

            Affidavit of Moneer Issa, ':II8ill [NYSCEF Doc. No. 285]).     Counsel

            for the plaintiff's asserts that "the Instagram account has

            alw,3.ys belonged to the Plaintiff Adriana Rodriguez'i (see,

            Memorandum in Opposition, page 3 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 293]),

            Further, plaintiff's counsel argues that "the Instagram account

            to which the Defendants refer was created, owned and operated at

            all relevant times by the Plaintiff Adriana Rodriguez, The

            Plaintiff Rodriguez created the account by herself and on her own

            time. She registered the account with her perscirial cell phone

            m.1rt1her and has always maintained exclusive access to her

            individual Instagram account in 2020 frorn its inception to date,

            She was the sole individual posting on the Insta.gram accm.:int, and

            the only person with access to the account was and is Plaintiff
            ~od±iguez. All the pictures o~ the Instagram account were taken

            by Plaintiffs and depict fpod that was prepared solely by he.r

            husband Cesar Ramirez. The Plaintiff Rodriguez is the sole owner

            of this Instagram a.ccount" (id., at page 6).   While there is no

            affidavit from Ms, Rodriguez in this regard, the information
            subrrii tted including the opening of the. Instagram account surely

            tais.es questions of fact whether the. account belongs to Chef's

                                              7

                                           7 of 8
[* 7]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                          INDEX NO. 521206/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 326                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

           Table or Mr. Rodriguez.    Thus, while it is true that a

           preliminary injunction may be granted where some facts are iri

           dispute· and it is still apparent the moving party has a

           likelihood of success on the merits,      (see, Borenstein v. Rochel

           Properties, 176 AD2d 171, 574 NYS2d 192 [ pt Dept.,     1991 J)   some

           evidence of likelihood of success must be presented.        Therefore,

           when "key factsf' are in q;ispute and the moving party cannot
           satisfy the necessary elements then an injunction must be denied

            (Digestive Liver Disease P.C. v. Patel, 18 AD3d 423, 793 NYS2d

           773 [2d Dept., 2005]).

                 The ownership of the Instagrarn account is decidedly

           disputed.    Thus, there can be no injunctive relief concerning the

           account until the factual issues of 'Ownership are resolved.

           Therefore, the motion seeking any injunctive relief regarding the

           Instagra:m account is denied.

                 So ordered.

                                       ENTER:

           DATED: March 28, 2024
                  Brooklyn N.Y.
                                                           jD
                                                Hon. Leon Ruchelsman
                                                JSC

                                                s

                                           8 of 8
[* 8]