| Island Sports Physical Therapy v Burns |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04002 [84 AD3d 878] |
| May 10, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Island Sports Physical Therapy, Appellant, v WilliamBurns et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Fallon and Fallon, LLP, Sayville, N.Y. (David P. Fallon of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and breach of the duty of loyalty, theplaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), datedNovember 20, 2009, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
" '[A]n employee owes a duty of good faith and loyalty to an employer in the performance ofthe employee's duties' " (30 FPS Prods.,Inc. v Livolsi, 68 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2009], quoting Wallack Frgt. Lines v Next DayExpress, 273 AD2d 462, 463 [2000]; see Lamdin v Broadway Surface Adv. Corp.,272 NY 133 [1936]; CBS Corp. v Dumsday, 268 AD2d 350, 353 [2000]). "An employeemay create a competing business prior to leaving [her or] his employer without breaching anyfiduciary duty unless [she or] he makes improper use of the employer's time, facilities orproprietary secrets in doing so" (Schneider Leasing Plus v Stallone, 172 AD2d 739, 741[1991]; see 30 FPS Prods., Inc. v Livolsi, 68 AD3d at 1102; Beverage Mktg. USA, Inc. v South BeachBeverage Co., Inc., 58 AD3d 657, 658 [2009]; Wallack Frgt. Lines v Next DayExpress, 273 AD2d at 463; CBS Corp. v Dumsday, 268 AD2d at 353). In general, anemployee may solicit an employer's customers only when the employment relationship has beenterminated (see A & L Scientific Corp. v Latmore, 265 AD2d 355, 356 [1999];Catalogue Serv. of Westchester v Wise, 63 AD2d 895 [1978]).
Further, "[s]olicitation of an entity's customers by a former employee or independentcontractor is not actionable unless the customer list could be considered a trade secret, or therewas wrongful conduct by the employee or independent contractor, such as physically taking orcopying files or using confidential information" (Starlight Limousine Serv. v Cucinella,275 AD2d 704, 705 [2000]; see Walter Karl, Inc. v Wood, 137 AD2d 22, 27 [1988];see also Leo Silfen, Inc. v Cream, 29 NY2d 387, 391-392 [1972]). "The use ofinformation about an employer's customers which is based on casual memory is not actionable"(Levine v Bochner, 132 AD2d 532, 533 [1987]; see Anchor Alloys v Non-FerrousProcessing Corp., 39 AD2d 504, 507 [1972]; see also Leo Silfen, Inc. v Cream, 29NY2d 387 [1972]).
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawon the cause of action alleging breach of the duty of loyalty by demonstrating that the defendantWilliam [*2]Burns did not, while in the employ of the plaintiff,Island Sports Physical Therapy (hereinafter ISPT), use ISPT's time or facilities to form acompeting entity, the defendant Village Physical Therapy, P.C. (hereinafter VPT) (seeBeverage Mktg. USA, Inc. v South Beach Beverage Co., Inc., 58 AD3d at 658), or solicitISPT's patients to patronize that competing entity (see Mal Dunn Assoc. v Kranjac, 145AD2d 472 [1988]). Moreover, the defendants established, prima facie, that ISPT's patient listsdid not constitute trade secrets (see Starlight Limousine Serv. v Cucinella, 275 AD2d at705; see generally Ashland Mgt. v Janien, 82 NY2d 395, 407 [1993]). In opposition, theplaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, including as to whether the defendants or someoneacting on their behalf engaged in wrongful conduct (see Starlight Limousine Serv. vCucinella, 275 AD2d at 705).
Additionally, in response to the defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgmentas a matter of law on the cause of action alleging fraud, ISPT failed to raise a triable issue of fact(see generally Barclay Arms v Barclay Arms Assoc., 74 NY2d 644, 647 [1989];Channel Master Corp. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales, 4 NY2d 403, 406-407 [1958]).
ISPT's remaining contention is without merit (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Sasson v Setina Mfg. Co., Inc., 26AD3d 487, 488 [2006]; Cruz v Otis El. Co., 238 AD2d 540 [1997]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.