In the highly competitive restaurant industry, owners must take steps to protect their proprietary information, such as recipes, techniques, concepts and strategies from theft by former employees. Trade Secrets are any type of information that provides the owner of that information with a competitive advantage as a result of the information not being generally known and readily ascertainable by others.

GENERAL RULE: An owner should protect Trade Secrets with Confidentiality Agreements and take all measures necessary to keep such information secure from disclosure.

Employees who are involved with proprietary information, as well as managers and restaurant executives, should sign confidentiality agreements. In pertinent part, the confidentiality agreement should state the general information that is considered trade secret and should further state that any use or disclosure of this information, other than that specifically allowed by the employer, will be considered a breach of confidentiality and shall subject the employee to legal action and any damages.

As further protection, confidential documents containing recipes, concepts and techniques should be marked “Proprietary and Confidential Information; do not copy or distribute.”

Remind departing employees in writing of their continuing obligation to the confidentiality of the Trade Secrets of your company and have them return all manuals and documents they have in their possession when they leave your employment.

An experienced restaurant employment attorney can draft the appropriate confidentiality Agreement for your specific establishment and can develop a program for you to implement which will maximize your chances that such information will remain confidential and be classified as Trade Secret.

National Safety Council statistics establish that more people are injured in America in slip-and-fall situations than in any other accident scenario.

GENERAL RULE: The owner of a restaurant or bar where such injuries occur is not automatically legally responsible for the consequences of a slip and fall on his/her premises. Proof must be adduced by the plaintiff to establish that: (1) a dangerous condition was created or permitted by the defendant to remain for an unreasonably long time; and (2) the defendant had notice of its existence during such time and failed to take reasonable measures to remove it or to prevent the accident. If you have insurance coverage, notify your carrier immediately upon learning of the incident.

As such, the mere occurrence of the injury does not suffice to impute liability to the restaurant owner. Rather, recent cases have alerted plaintiff’s counsel that in order to prevail in their slip and fall cases, they must prove the specific instrumentality causing the fall, the location and causation of the accident, and specifics of the time frame when the hazard was created; it must also be proven that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of its existence (i.e. that they knew or had reason to know of it). Regardless of the difficulty in successfully bringing forth a slip and fall case, restaurant owners are strongly advised to have this contingency covered via careful periodic inspections of the premises and an insurance policy encompassing this type of liability. The increased insurance premium will be nominal compared to the damages that can, and have been, awarded to successful slip and fall plaintiffs.

Have you ever received a poor review for your restaurant and then contemplated suing the restaurant critic and/or publication that published it? Don’t bother. Review of the results of such litigation indicates that you would be wasting your time and money.

Libel is the publication of a false statement of fact. Opinion, however, regardless of how negative or damaging it may be, is protected and not considered libelous. Restaurant reviews have been consistently deemed “opinion” by New York courts and as such, the courts have consistently decided such cases in favor of the critics. For example, over the course of the past 20 years, restaurateurs have unsuccessfully sued over the following reviews: “Trout à la green plague”, “The fish tasted like old ski boots”, “Duck pancakes the size of a saucer and the thickness of a finger”, and “Bring a can of Raid if you plan to eat here.”

GENERAL RULE: If you receive a poor review, don’t file a legal action over it. Established case precedent dictates that you won’t win the case and even worse, the negative review will be republished (perhaps repeatedly) as a result of your legal action.

Rather than resorting to legal action, some established restaurateurs such as Harry Cipriani and Jeffrey Chodorow have retaliated against negative reviews by placing expensive full page ads called “open letters” denouncing the critic and the critic’s review and qualifications. While this avenue may be personally satisfying and even deserved, I don’t believe it has any redeeming business value. Besides being terribly expensive (a full page in the New York Times costs upwards of $84,000.00), it only serves to republish the negative review and keep it in the minds of potential patrons and public for a longer period of time.

The New York City Mayor’s Office published a terrific guide that should be read by all indiviudals that own, or plan to own, a restaurant in NYC.   Its a terrific resource for the basics of NY restaurant ownership.  Here’s the link to the guide:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/2737nycrestaurantguide-81606.pdf

When applying for a liquor license, the application of the “500 foot rule” often results in the application being rejected. It is imperative that an applicant know whether the rule will apply to their license application and, if it does, to prepare accordingly.

GENERAL RULE: No license for on-premises liquor consumption may be granted for any premise within 500 feet of three or more existing premises licensed and operating with an on-premises liquor license. BUT the State Liquor Authority, in it’s discretion, may still issue the license if they determine that the license would be “in the public interest” after consulting with the local Community Board and holding a public hearing upon notice (a/k/a The 500 Foot Hearing).

Factors the Liquor Authority consider relevant when determining if the license would be “in the public interest” include the type of the proposed establishment (i.e., restaurant or bar), and the number, classes and types of businesses licensed within 500 feet of the proposed premise. They also consider whether the applicant has had prior violations or complaints at other establishments and quality of life issues such as anticipated increased traffic, potential parking problems and noise issues.

The 500 foot hearing is held at the Liquor Authority and individuals and community groups may appear to challenge the granting of a license. A consultation with an experienced liquor license attorney is highly recommended prior to attending this hearing. But in general, wear a suit and be prepared to answer any and all questions regarding your proposed establishment. Bring a copy of your completed liquor license application with you along with all supporting documents filed therewith.

NOTE: The 500 Foot Rule is not applicable if the premises has been continuously licensed on or prior to November 1, 1993 or if the County has a population of less than 20,000.