Duro-Test Corp. v. Ward
17 Misc. 2d 1028, 193 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2569
Opinion
The complaint does not allege that defendant has violated any confidence. His fault is that he, in violation of the contract, has accepted employment from a competitor of plaintiff. Against this, plaintiff is not entitled to protection (General Business Law, § 340).
The contract is too broad in its terms and is unenforcible. (Paramount Pad Co. v. Baumrind, 4 N Y 2d 393; Murray v. Cooper, 268 App. Div. 411, affd. 294 N. Y. 658.)
The motion is granted with $10 costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Duro-Test Corp. v. Ward, 17 Misc. 2d 1028, 193 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2569 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1958).
17 Misc. 2d 1028 (Duro-Test Corp. v. Ward) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Murray v. Cooper
60 N.E.2d 387 (New York Court of Appeals, 1945)
Murray v. Cooper
268 A.D. 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1944)