Barrister Reporting Service v. Reinig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barrister Reporting Service v. Reinig

169 A.D.2d 583, 565 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 540

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 A.D.2d 583 (Barrister Reporting Service v. Reinig) 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

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).

Pincite

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]*584individually 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

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]*584individually 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 583, 565 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrister-reporting-service-v-reinig-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack