Legal Opinion

Apollo Stationery Co. v. Pilmar

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1958PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMobbis E. Spegtob, J.

Motion for a temporary injunction is denied and the stay vacated. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin a former employee and others from soliciting its customers or doing any business with them, alleging that defendant Pilmer has obtained a listing of its customers in an improper manner and for the purpose of competing with it.

Plaintiff’s citations are clearly distinguishable from the present case, for example; In Conviser v. Brownstone & Co. (209 App. Div. 584) the defendant used a list of plaintiff’s customers dishonestly obtained by defendant from one of plaintiff’s employees ; in Duane Jones Co. v.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Duane Jones Co. v. BurkeNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
  2. Conviser v. J. C. Brownstone & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Tempo Instrument, Inc. v. Logitek, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1964
  2. Northern States Power Co. v. North Dakota Public Service CommissionNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Apollo Stationery Co. v. PilmarNew York Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Haggerty v. Burkey Mills, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1962
  5. Rudiger v. KenyonNew York Supreme Court · 1962

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API