In a recent decision in Beck Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. Brian Levine, Justice Linda S. Jamieson of the Westchester Commercial Division denied a motion for preliminary injunction brought by a Westchester-based car dealership against its former Sales Manager. The decision is a cautionary tale for employers asserting trade secret claims and seeking injunctive relief without sufficient evidentiary support.

Background

Plaintiff Beck Chevrolet sued its former Sales Manager, Brian Levine, alleging misappropriation of confidential customer lists following Levine’s departure. The dealership sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Levine from using its customer information at his new place of employment—a competing General Motors dealership in the Bronx.

In support of its motion, Beck Chevrolet submitted affidavits from its President and a longtime customer, as well as screenshots of Levine’s social media activity. The dealership claimed Levine had solicited customers he worked with during his time at Beck and that he had improperly retained customer information, specifically “Buyers Order” documents listing transaction details.

Levine opposed the motion with a detailed affirmation asserting that he had not taken or misused any confidential material. He explained that the transaction records were returned upon his departure and had not been copied or used. He also pointed out that: (1) the customer information was either already in his possession due to longstanding relationships or was publicly available; (2) the same data is accessible to salespeople at all GM dealerships, not exclusive to Beck Chevrolet; and (3) many of the customers referenced were individuals who had followed him from a prior dealership and maintained ongoing relationships with him, independent of Beck.

He further denied soliciting customers prior to joining his new employer and refuted specific allegations, including a timeline inconsistency from Beck’s witness.

Legal Framework

Justice Jamieson reviewed the motion under the familiar three-part standard for a preliminary injunction under CPLR § 6301: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm absent injunctive relief; and (3) a balancing of the equities in favor of the movant.

Noting that injunctive relief is a “drastic remedy,” the court emphasized the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to support each element.

The Court’s Analysis

Justice Jamieson denied the motion in its entirety, finding that Beck failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its misappropriation claim.

The court observed that Beck had not even filed a complaint, forcing the court to infer the likely claims from its motion papers. Construing the request as one grounded in trade secret misappropriation, the court found the record lacking. In particular:

  • Beck’s assertions that its customer lists were confidential were conclusory and unsupported by admissible evidence.
  • By contrast, Levine provided sworn statements explaining that the relevant information was available through GM systems to any authorized dealership employee and often came from his own personal contacts.
  • The court held that customer identities and transaction details available to other GM dealerships or already in a salesperson’s possession do not constitute protectable trade secrets.

Additionally, the court noted the absence of any contractual or fiduciary duty prohibiting Levine from using general customer information, especially where that information was not confidential and was lawfully obtained.

Lastly, the court found the testimony of Beck’s customer witness unconvincing, particularly since the timeline of the alleged solicitation did not align with when Levine began discussions with his new employer.

Conclusion

Justice Jamieson’s decision reinforces the high burden plaintiffs face when seeking preliminary injunctive relief based on alleged trade secret violations. Merely asserting that customer information is “confidential” is insufficient, particularly where the information is readily available through other lawful means and not subject to any restrictive agreement. 

The ruling also highlights the importance of substantiating claims with detailed, credible evidence—especially when seeking the “drastic remedy” of an injunction.

This case will now proceed without the restraint of a preliminary injunction, leaving Beck Chevrolet to pursue its claims, if any, through the standard litigation process.

To learn more about new developments in the Westchester Commercial Division, please subscribe to the Westchester Commercial Division Blog.