information pertaining to the Company’s customer relationships, sales strategies and business development efforts.” (Id.). Mr. Bouk’s base salary exceeded $157,000 with other unspecified benefits. (Id. .at ¶ 8). Plaintiffs also state that Mr. Bouk spent “more than 50% of his working time out on the road” servicing Veramark’s customers and “channel partners” and that he was “integral” in negotiating contracts with clients. (Id. at ¶ 6). Plaintiffs cite to three relationships that Mr. Bouk helped develop as part of his work for Veramark. (Id.). Plaintiffs’ proof in this regard is wholly insufficient to transform Mr. Bouk from an ordinary salesman into a unique employee. See Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co., Inc. v. A-1-A Corp., 42 N.Y.2d 496, 500, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 369 N.E.2d 4 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Not only do Plaintiffs, fail to offer any
recognizing that generally services that benefit debtor are services that facilitate completion of a case holding that attorney who simply provided legal services to corporation did not participate in operation or management of enterprise regardless of whether he performed those services well or poorly properly or improperly holding that plaintiff who provided similar services which were arguably attendant care services under state law fell within the exemption holding that a salesman was not unique and provided only commonplace services holding that a corporation that purchased certain technology and support services through a services and licensing agreement was not protected by the njcfa because the technology and services were not 1 available to the public in large quantities or mass produced and 2 had no similarity to the comprehensive definitions of goods and services promulgated by the nj division of consumer affairs under the njcfa