In a September 10, 2010, decision by Justice Warshawsky in connection with an action by plaintiff-manufacturer alleging various business torts against defendant-employee, and on defendant’s motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 [a] [1] and [a] [2], the court 1) denied defendant’s motion based on documentary evidence, finding that the order slips reflecting a pre-existing relationship with plaintiff’s customers submitted by defendant “[did] not even remotely conclusively dispose of plaintiff’s claim”; 2) denied defendant’s motion regarding plaintiff’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, finding that the pleading was adequate despite the fact that “specifics [were] not included in the complaint” and that certain supporting allegations were “to say the least, minimal”; 3) denied defendant’s motion regarding plaintiff’s claim for unfair competition, finding that the pleading was sufficient “despite the apparent lack of an employment agreement with a non-compete clause”; 4) denied defendant’s motion regarding plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment; 5) granted defendant’s motion regarding plaintiff’s claim for fraud, finding that plaintiff failed to allege the various elements of a fraud claim under the heightened requirements of CPLR 3016; and 6) granted defendant’s motion regarding plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, finding that “[w]hen money damages can make the plaintiff whole, injunctive relief is not appropriate.” The court also struck plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, finding that “[t]he allegations of the complaint fall far short of the high degree of moral culpability, or willful or wanton negligence indicating a conscious disregard for the rights of others.” Finally, the court struck plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees, finding that claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment are not among the exceptions to the general rule in New York that “each party is to bear its own legal expenses.”