Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rynone Manufacturing Corp. v. HSB Stone Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. New York

April 28, 2015

RYNONE MANUFACTURING CORP., Plaintiff,
v.
HSB STONE CORP., BARRY ECHTMAN, SYBIL ECHTMAN, VIRGINIA MARBLE MANUFACTURERS, INC., NANCY BRIDGFORTH, and WILLIAM BRIDGFORTH, SR., Defendants.

LESLIE N. REIZES, ESQ., REIZES LAW FIRM, CHARTERED, Boynton Beach, Florida, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

DAVID SIMON, ESQ., HOGAN & ROSSI, Brewster, New York, Attorneys for Defendants HSB Stone Corp., Barry Echtman, and Sybil Echtman.

MICHAEL J. DIMATTIA, ESQ., PHILIP A. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ., McGUIREWOODS LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants Virginia Marble, Manufacturers, Inc., and Nancy Bridgforth.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, Jr., Senior District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff brings this action alleging various claims against Defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract, and theft of trade secrets.

Plaintiff originally filed its Complaint on March, 21, 2013, in this Court. In its Complaint, Plaintiff asserted five causes of action against Defendants HSB Stone, Inc. ("HSB Stone"), Barry Echtman, and Sybil Echtman (collectively "the HSB Stone Defendants"), as well as Defendants Virginia Marble Manufacturers, Inc. ("Virginia Marble"), Nancy Bridgforth, and William Bridgforth, Sr., (collectively "the Virginia Marble Defendants"), all arising from the HSB Stone Defendants' alleged disclosure of Plaintiff's proprietary information to the Virginia Marble Defendants.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that

HSB [Stone] breached its contract with Plaintiff by inter alia disclosing information and specification as to finished granite, marble, and engineered stone tops; pre-sized granite, marble and engineered stone slabs; granite, marble and engineered stone polished uncut slabs; undermount vanity bowls; stainless steel and copper undermount bowls; pedestal sinks; and styrofoam packing materials which Plaintiff had been purchasing through HSB [Stone] as its agent together with details of Plaintiff's product, sourcing, product ranges and percentage distribution for importation from China, to Plaintiff's competitor, Virginia Marble, Inc. ("Virginia Marble").

See Complaint at ¶ 13. Plaintiff also alleged that, "[a]s a result of the breach of contract, Virginia Marble was enabled to sell products subject of the agency agreement[] to Plaintiff's customer, NVR, Inc., which has resulted in a significant loss of revenue to Plaintiff." See id. at ¶ 14.[1] Plaintiff also alleged that it and Defendant HSB Stone shared a fiduciary relationship, whereby Plaintiff reposed trust and confidence in HSB Stone, and HSB Stone undertook such trust and assumed a duty to advise, counsel, and/or protect Plaintiff. See id. at ¶ 15. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants HSB Stone and Virginia Marble acted in a nature that was calculated to interfere with Plaintiff's business relationship with NVR, Inc., ("NVR") and that they did in fact interfere with that relationship. See id. at ¶ 20. Plaintiff alleged that its "sourcing information, product specifications, percentage distribution or product mix for importation, and customer list constitute trade secrets." See id. at ¶ 23. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Barry Echtman and Sybil Echtman authorized and directed Defendant HSB Stone's breach of fiduciary duty, "participated in the tortious interference with the relationship between Plaintiff and NVR, and participated in the theft of and dissemination of Plaintiff's trade secrets." See id. at ¶ 30. Plaintiff asserted that Defendants Nancy Bridgforth and William Bridgforth, Sr., participated in the use of trade secrets that Defendant HSB Stone stole, and directed and participated in the interference with the advantageous relationship between Plaintiff and NVR. See id. at ¶ 31. Plaintiff finally claimed that it had no adequate remedy at law for damages and that Defendants' acts irreparably harmed Plaintiff because Defendants' use of Plaintiff's information could "destroy Plaintiff's business and goodwill." See id. at ¶ 32.

Based upon these allegations, Plaintiff brought the following claims:

(1) a breach of contract claim against Defendant HSB Stone,
(2) a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Defendant HSB Stone,
(3) a tortious interference with contract claim against Defendants HSB Stone ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.