Back to Health Family Chiropractic Office, P. C. v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Back to Health Family Chiropractic Office, P. C. v. Murphy

261 A.D.2d 494, 690 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5461

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

DecidedMay 17, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 494 (Back to Health Family Chiropractic Office, P. C. v. Murphy) 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

Back to Health Family Chiropractic Office, P. C. v. Murphy, 261 A.D.2d 494, 690 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a restrictive covenant of an employment agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bellantoni, J.), dated April 21, 1998, which, upon reargument, modified a prior order of the same court (Juidice, J.), dated December 30, 1997, to the extent of denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for a permanent injunction.

[495]*495Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, modified the order dated December 30, 1997, by denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for a permanent injunction and substituting therefor a provision adhering to the prior determination; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

The restrictive covenant of the parties’ employment agreement was reasonable and enforceable (see, Gelder Med. Group v Webber, 41 NY2d 680; Washington Sq. Inst, for Psychotherapy & Mental Health v Speciner, 259 AD2d 368; Zellner v Stephen D. Conrad, M.D., P. C., 183 AD2d 250). S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a restrictive covenant of an employment agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bellantoni, J.), dated April 21, 1998, which, upon reargument, modified a prior order of the same court (Juidice, J.), dated December 30, 1997, to the extent of denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for a permanent injunction.

[495]*495Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, modified the order dated December 30, 1997, by denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for a permanent injunction and substituting therefor a provision adhering to the prior determination; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

The restrictive covenant of the parties’ employment agreement was reasonable and enforceable (see, Gelder Med. Group v Webber, 41 NY2d 680; Washington Sq. Inst, for Psychotherapy & Mental Health v Speciner, 259 AD2d 368; Zellner v Stephen D. Conrad, M.D., P. C., 183 AD2d 250). S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 494, 690 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/back-to-health-family-chiropractic-office-p-c-v-murphy-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack