Barrister Reporting Service v. Reinig

169 A.D.2d 583, 565 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 540
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 24, 1991·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about April 5, 1990, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant admits to having acted as an agent of the plaintiff in providing stenographic services for a deposition. The record, however, contains conflicting evidence as to whether the defendant actively solicited the business or was, instead, approached by the attorney who ultimately hired him, and whether or not that attorney intended to hire the defendant [584] individually or as an employee of plaintiff. Accordingly, there are issues of fact precluding summary judgment on the question of whether or not the defendant violated his duty not to compete with the plaintiff while still in the plaintiff’s employment (Catalogue Serv. v Wise, 63 AD2d 895). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Barrister Reporting Service v. Reinig, 169 A.D.2d 583, 565 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

169 A.D.2d 583 (Barrister Reporting Service v. Reinig) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

A & L Scientific Corp. v. Latmore
265 A.D.2d 355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)