THE FACTS OF THE SCENARIO

Facts — Hudson Valley Biometrics, Inc. v. Priya Iyer

Every labelled fact below is the single source the pages are generated from. Change a value here and everything rendered from it follows on the next publish; passages that restate it in prose are found and drafted for review, never changed silently.

Caption restated in 2 passages (each needs its own edit)

Hudson Valley Biometrics, Inc. v. Priya Iyer

Open date restated in 2 passages (each needs its own edit)

2026-02-17

As of date not yet mentioned in the prose

2026-06-30

Client name restated in 27 passages (each needs its own edit)

Priya Iyer

Matter summary not yet mentioned in the prose

Former employer Hudson Valley Biometrics, Inc. moved by Order to Show Cause for a preliminary injunction to enforce a two-year, geographically unlimited non-compete and trade-secret covenants against Ms. Iyer, alleging she will inevitably disclose its 'matching engine' algorithm if she joins competitor Sightline Perception. Firm engaged to oppose the injunction. Client insists she took no files; employer's own forensic review found no exfiltration.

Intake date not yet mentioned in the prose

2026-02-15

Referral source not yet mentioned in the prose

referral from a colleague in the client's professional network

Result restated in 4 passages (each needs its own edit)

clear

Notes not yet mentioned in the prose

No prior or current representation of Hudson Valley Biometrics, Sightline Perception, or Halbrook Renner & Iselin. No firm relationship with Mr. Steinhauer. No positional conflict identified in restrictive-covenant defense.

Checked date not yet mentioned in the prose

2026-02-16

Rate not yet mentioned in the prose

250

Engagement date restated in 2 passages (each needs its own edit)

2026-02-17

Adding a fact records it here first — it appears in the prose only through drafted mentions you approve.