E. W. Bruno Co. v. Friedberg
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtEager, J.
As a matter of law, the amount of recovery awarded to plaintiff may not stand. On the basis of the findings of the Referee and the record, the stated award is unsupported and should be modified.
The plaintiff was heretofore held entitled to have a recovery against the defendants for a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant Friedberg as plaintiff’s sales manager in secretly soliciting and appropriating his employer’s business with respect to the importation and sale in this country of ‘ ‘ Royal Sweden” hairbrushes. This court held that the recovery of damages was ‘‘ the appropriate and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Duane Jones Co. v. BurkeNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Michel Cosmetics, Inc. v. TsirkasNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
- Dickinson v. O. & W. THUM CO.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1925
- NICHOLS-MORRIS CORPORATION v. MorrisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1959
3Cited by9 opinions
- Alexander & Alexander of New York, Inc. v. FritzenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- OKRAYAENTS v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Gomez v. BicknellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Hertz Corp. v. Avis, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Reichman v. Warehouse One, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.