Court Declines To Find Disclosure Of A “Clients/Prospects” List Is An Automatic Breach Of Confidentiality Agreement Between Company And Its Ex-President

Posted: March 16, 2026 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Categories Breach of Contract, Confidentiality

Court Declines To Find Disclosure Of A “Clients/Prospects” List Is An Automatic Breach Of Confidentiality Agreement Between Company And Its Ex-President

On January 9, 2026, Justice Andrea Masley denied a motion brought by a company against its former president seeking summary judgment for breach of an employment agreement that contained confidentiality clauses despite evidence that the ex-president had passed lists of accounts and “clients/prospects” to potential new employers. In Frosch International Travel, Inc. v. Michel Botbol, Index No. 653071, the Court acknowledged several e-mails in which the ex-president passed lists of accounts and clients to two potential employers, and it noted that the lists did appear to contain at least some of the company’s customers. However, the Court found that questions of material fact still existed as to whether the information in the lists was truly confidential company information. It explained:

New York courts have held that “A customer list will be treated as a trade secret when the names and addresses of the customers are not known in the trade or can be obtained only through extraordinary effort. . . However, trade secret protection will not be accorded to customer lists where the names of customers and potential the customers are readily ascertainable.” . . . Botbol explains that the entities in question are “large companies seeking travel related services [] known to those who work in the travel industry and are thus not secret. . . .” To further evidence that the information on the customer lists is publicly available, Botbol offers a list generated on Zoominfo, a tool “to easily get the publicly available information of the contacts at the desired companies.” . . . Botbol also points to Leibman’s testimony that Botbol’s role at Frosch was to “bring[] in new clients with his relationships,” as evidence that Botbol had knowledge of these large companies prior to joining Frosch. . . . A question of fact exists as to whether the customer list contain confidential Frosch information and summary judgment must therefore be denied.

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan have extensive experience with employment agreements, non-compete agreements, and confidentiality agreements. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.