Duro-Test Corp. v. Ward

New York Supreme Court

Duro-Test Corp. v. Ward

17 Misc. 2d 1028, 193 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2569

DecidedOctober 8, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Misc. 2d 1028 (Duro-Test Corp. v. Ward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

Opinion

James C. O’Brien, J.

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

James C. O’Brien, J.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Misc. 2d 1028, 193 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duro-test-corp-v-ward-nysupct-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack