Stoeckel v. Block
David Stoeckel v. Burton H. Block, Individually and Doing Business as Block & Company
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered January 16, 1990, which, inter alia, upon a jury verdict, found in favor of plaintiffs against the defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs, former employees of defendant, sought unpaid commissions allegedly due following the termination of their employment, while defendant counterclaimed for breach of fidelity, arising from plaintiffs’ solicitation of defendant’s customers. While the jury found that plaintiffs had breached their fiduciary duty to defendant, it awarded no damages on the defendant’s counterclaim.
We recognize that the measure of damages on defendant’s counterclaim would be the amount defendant would have made but for plaintiffs’ wrong, including lost opportunities for profits on accounts diverted from it through plaintiffs’ conduct (Bruno Co. v Friedberg, 21 AD2d 336, 341 ). We also recognize plaintiffs’ freedom to compete with their former employer, absent a restrictive covenant against such competition, use of trade secrets or fraudulent means (Walter Karl, Inc. v Wood, 137 AD2d 22, 27 ).
However, we do not find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The evidence adduced at trial indicated only that plaintiffs had made a few inquiries as to the possibility of being retained by defendant’s customers. Although defendant established a decline in profits during the period subsequent to plaintiffs’ termination, which was the result of a majority of defendant’s clients utilizing the services of plaintiffs’ new enterprise, it was not demonstrated that this decline in business was attributable to plaintiffs’ alleged wrongful conduct during the term of their employment with defendant. Accordingly, we see no basis for setting aside the *418 verdict awarding defendant no damages or remanding the matter to the trial term on this issue (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 ). We have considered and rejected defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(refusing to set aside jury verdict in favor of plaintiff because "it was not demonstrated that [defendant's loss] was attributable to plaintiff's alleged wrongful conduct”)
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals3
- Federal District Courts3
- Bankruptcy Courts2
- State Appellate Courts4
- State Trial Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.