A. B. Dick Co. v. Froschauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A. B. Dick Co. v. Froschauer

141 A.D.2d 905, 529 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5827

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 2, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 A.D.2d 905 (A. B. Dick Co. v. Froschauer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. B. Dick Co. v. Froschauer, 141 A.D.2d 905, 529 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Doran, J.), entered October 16, 1987 in Albany County, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiff’s demands for injunctive relief in its complaint and its motion for a preliminary injunction are based upon defendant’s agreement not to compete for a period of one year following termination of his employment with plaintiff. Plaintiff argues on appeal that the agreement established a one-year period of noncompetition which could be enforced at any time, but the agreement specifies that the one-year period begins to run upon termination of defendant’s employment. Plaintiff offers no justification for seeking to vary the terms of the unambiguous one-year covenant not to compete which it drafted. Since this one-year period expired May 11, 1988, plaintiff’s appeal from the order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction is moot.

Appeal dismissed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Doran, J.), entered October 16, 1987 in Albany County, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiff’s demands for injunctive relief in its complaint and its motion for a preliminary injunction are based upon defendant’s agreement not to compete for a period of one year following termination of his employment with plaintiff. Plaintiff argues on appeal that the agreement established a one-year period of noncompetition which could be enforced at any time, but the agreement specifies that the one-year period begins to run upon termination of defendant’s employment. Plaintiff offers no justification for seeking to vary the terms of the unambiguous one-year covenant not to compete which it drafted. Since this one-year period expired May 11, 1988, plaintiff’s appeal from the order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction is moot.

Appeal dismissed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 905, 529 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-b-dick-co-v-froschauer-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack