The issue of the sufficiency of plaintiffs' pleadings has previously been before this court (Krause Krause v Gelman, 167 A.D.2d 299). Plaintiffs have adequately stated a basis for an accounting against defendant, a former employee who is accused of diverting plaintiffs' business. An employee may not act in a manner which is inconsistent with his or her agency or trust and is bound to exercise the "utmost good faith and loyalty" in the performance of his or her duties. Such being the case, the employee or agent may be held to account to the principal or employer for any secret profits, and may also forfeit his or her right to compensation for services rendered in the event the employee proves to be disloyal (Gassman Gassman v Salzman, 112 A.D.2d 82, 83-84). The complaint sufficiently pleads defendant's purported disloyalty. Accordingly, the imposition of fees as a sanction is vacated.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Wallach, Ross and Smith, JJ.