DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendants from using its trade secrets. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.
Although there is no generally accepted definition of a trade secret, one which has been cited with approval by the Court of Appeals states that a trade secret is "`any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives [one] an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it'" (Ashland Mgt., Inc. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395, 407, quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, comment b). In the instant case, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff's suppliers in China were "not known in the trade or [were] discoverable only by extraordinary efforts", and whether the plaintiff's relationship with these suppliers was "secured by years of effort and advertising effected by the expenditure of substantial time and money", such that the lists at issue constitute a trade secret (Leo Silfen, Inc. v. Cream, 29 N.Y.2d 387, 392-393; Laro Maintenance Corp. v. Culkin, ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Dec. 27, 1999]).
Additionally, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Ye breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing while employed by the plaintiff (see, Lamdin v. Broadway Surface Adv. Corp., 272 N.Y. 133, 138; Maritime Fish Prods., Inc. v. World-Wide Fish Prods., 100 A.D.2d 81, 88).
FRIEDMANN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.