Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
R.P.I. SERVICES, INC. doing business as Response Medical Staffing, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jason EISENBERG, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered December 17, 2008, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment to the extent of setting a maximum amount of damages that may be recoverable, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff alleges misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference with prospective business relations by the corporate defendants, as well as breach of contract, breach of loyalty and misappropriation of trade secrets by the individual defendants. The court was unable to ascertain, from the documents submitted, that plaintiffs' recovery should be limited to the net profits it would have earned upon the staffing placement of 12 nurse candidates by the corporate defendants.
In Duane Jones Co. v. Burke, 306 N.Y. 172, 192, 117 N.E.2d 237 [1954], the Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff making similar allegations “was entitled to recover as damages the amount of loss sustained by it, including opportunities for profit on the accounts diverted from it through defendants' conduct,” and that the plaintiff's loss “was a continuing one extending at least up to the date of trial.” The Court declined to limit the jury's ability to assess the extent of damages “when from the nature of the case the amount of the damages cannot be estimated with certainty, or only a part of them can be so estimated” (see also McRoberts Protective Agency v. Lansdell Protective Agency, 61 A.D.2d 652, 403 N.Y.S.2d 511 [1978] ). On the record before us, the maximum amount of damages cannot be set as a matter of law.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 31, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)