Dof Holdings v. Bove

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dof Holdings v. Bove

4 A.D.3d 323, 770 N.Y.S.2d 893

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.3d 323 (Dof Holdings v. Bove) 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

Dof Holdings v. Bove, 4 A.D.3d 323, 770 N.Y.S.2d 893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to enforce a covenant not to compete contained in a purchase agreement dated November 9, 1998, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated November 19, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Therefore, their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.E, Florio, S. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to enforce a covenant not to compete contained in a purchase agreement dated November 9, 1998, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated November 19, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Therefore, their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.E, Florio, S. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 323, 770 N.Y.S.2d 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dof-holdings-v-bove-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack