Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Radon Corp. of America, Inc. v. National Radon Safety Board
Citations: 125 A.D.3d 1537; 4 N.Y.S.3d 440
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; February 12, 2015; New York; State Appellate Court
The judgment from the Supreme Court of Onondaga County, entered on August 7, 2013, is the subject of an appeal and cross-appeal. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the amended complaint against them, as well as certain claims against the Radon Testing Corporation of America, Inc. (RTCA). It also granted the plaintiff summary judgment on its fifth cause of action against RTCA, declaring that the plaintiff did not infringe on RTCA's trade name. The appellate court modifies the judgment by reinstating the fourth cause of action regarding unfair competition and restraint of trade under the Donnelly Act but denies the plaintiff's request for summary judgment on this claim due to existing triable issues of fact. The court affirms that the National Radon Safety Board (NRSB) is not a state actor and correctly dismissed the first and second causes of action based on equal protection and due process. It also upheld the dismissal of the third cause of action for tortious interference, citing that normal economic self-interest does not constitute actionable interference. The court clarifies that proving a violation of the Donnelly Act requires specifying the product market, nature and effects of the conspiracy, its economic impact on trade, and demonstrating a conspiracy between entities, noting that only unreasonable restraints on trade are prohibited. Finally, it recognizes that New York serves as a relevant geographic submarket for Continuous Radon Monitor calibration services. Triable issues of fact exist regarding whether RTCA and NRSB engaged in concerted actions that unreasonably restrained trade in New York's CRM-calibration market. The individual defendants, employed by RTCA and serving on the NRSB board, were involved in adopting a policy that barred the plaintiff from providing CRM-calibration services. NRSB's internal disputes do not negate the possibility of conspiracy between the two entities, and there is a factual question regarding RTCA's competition with the plaintiff. The individual defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the fourth cause of action, as corporate officers can be held liable for antitrust violations under the Donnelly Act, with questions remaining about their involvement. Additionally, the court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff regarding the fifth cause of action against RTCA, affirming that the plaintiff did not infringe RTCA's trade name, but the court failed to issue a necessary declaration about this. The judgment will be modified to address this oversight.