DS Courier Services, Inc. v. Seebarran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DS Courier Services, Inc. v. Seebarran

40 A.D.3d 271, 834 N.Y.S.2d 191

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

DecidedMay 3, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 271 (DS Courier Services, Inc. v. Seebarran) 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

DS Courier Services, Inc. v. Seebarran, 40 A.D.3d 271, 834 N.Y.S.2d 191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered May 25, 2006, which, in an action to enforce a restrictive covenant, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subject restrictive covenant is contained in an agreement [272]*272that describes defendant as an “independent contractor” and obligates him to “perform trucking services ... as required and subject to change at any time” by plaintiff, a courier service. The contract does not provide for compensation, although it does require plaintiff to give defendant a 1099 tax form, and it appears that defendant was paid on a per item basis. The covenant prohibits defendant from negotiating directly or indirectly with any of six identified customers of plaintiff for a period of 120 days after termination of defendant’s service, voluntary or otherwise. Such covenant “is, on its face, reasonably limited, both temporally and geographically, and not unduly burdensome,” and therefore prima facie enforceable (American Para Professional Sys. v Examination Mgt. Servs., 214 AD2d 413, 414 [1995]). It does not avail defendant that his association with plaintiff did not involve use of trade secrets or confidential customer lists; the covenant legitimately protects the goodwill that plaintiff had developed with certain of its customers (see Scott, Stackrow & Co., C.P.A.'s, PC. v Skavina, 9 AD3d 805, 806 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 612 [2004]). We also reject defendant’s argument that the covenant is not enforceable because it is contained in a contract that imposes no obligations on plaintiff. It appears that although not obligated to do so, plaintiff did in fact utilize defendant’s services, triggering an implied obligation to compensate and an express obligation to provide a 1099 tax form. We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P, Marlow, Sullivan, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered May 25, 2006, which, in an action to enforce a restrictive covenant, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subject restrictive covenant is contained in an agreement [272]*272that describes defendant as an “independent contractor” and obligates him to “perform trucking services ... as required and subject to change at any time” by plaintiff, a courier service. The contract does not provide for compensation, although it does require plaintiff to give defendant a 1099 tax form, and it appears that defendant was paid on a per item basis. The covenant prohibits defendant from negotiating directly or indirectly with any of six identified customers of plaintiff for a period of 120 days after termination of defendant’s service, voluntary or otherwise. Such covenant “is, on its face, reasonably limited, both temporally and geographically, and not unduly burdensome,” and therefore prima facie enforceable (American Para Professional Sys. v Examination Mgt. Servs., 214 AD2d 413, 414 [1995]). It does not avail defendant that his association with plaintiff did not involve use of trade secrets or confidential customer lists; the covenant legitimately protects the goodwill that plaintiff had developed with certain of its customers (see Scott, Stackrow & Co., C.P.A.'s, PC. v Skavina, 9 AD3d 805, 806 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 612 [2004]). We also reject defendant’s argument that the covenant is not enforceable because it is contained in a contract that imposes no obligations on plaintiff. It appears that although not obligated to do so, plaintiff did in fact utilize defendant’s services, triggering an implied obligation to compensate and an express obligation to provide a 1099 tax form. We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P, Marlow, Sullivan, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 271, 834 N.Y.S.2d 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ds-courier-services-inc-v-seebarran-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack