Joint Effort Medical, P. C. v. Dunkelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joint Effort Medical, P. C. v. Dunkelman

245 A.D.2d 264, 664 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12091

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 264 (Joint Effort Medical, P. C. v. Dunkelman) 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

Joint Effort Medical, P. C. v. Dunkelman, 245 A.D.2d 264, 664 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12091 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to re[265]*265cover damages for breach of an employment contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated January 28, 1997, which, inter alia, denied his cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s cross motion is granted, and the amended complaint is dismissed.

The amended complaint alleges only that the defendant solicited clients of the plaintiff in violation of a nonsolicitation clause contained in the defendant’s employment contract with the plaintiff. However, it is undisputed that the clause relied on is not restricted as to time or place. Moreover, there is no allegation that the defendant improperly used any of the plaintiff’s trade secrets or a protectable customer list. Under the circumstances of this case, such allegations are insufficient, as a matter of law, to state a cause of action for breach of a nonsolicitation clause contained in an employment contract (see, Greenwich Mills Co. v Barrie House Coffee Co., 91 AD2d 398; see also, Reed, Roberts Assocs. v Strauman, 40 NY2d 303; Karpinski v Ingrasci, 28 NY2d 45; Investor Access Corp. v Doremus & Co., 186 AD2d 401).

The parties’ remaining contentions are academic in light of this determination. Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to re[265]*265cover damages for breach of an employment contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated January 28, 1997, which, inter alia, denied his cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s cross motion is granted, and the amended complaint is dismissed.

The amended complaint alleges only that the defendant solicited clients of the plaintiff in violation of a nonsolicitation clause contained in the defendant’s employment contract with the plaintiff. However, it is undisputed that the clause relied on is not restricted as to time or place. Moreover, there is no allegation that the defendant improperly used any of the plaintiff’s trade secrets or a protectable customer list. Under the circumstances of this case, such allegations are insufficient, as a matter of law, to state a cause of action for breach of a nonsolicitation clause contained in an employment contract (see, Greenwich Mills Co. v Barrie House Coffee Co., 91 AD2d 398; see also, Reed, Roberts Assocs. v Strauman, 40 NY2d 303; Karpinski v Ingrasci, 28 NY2d 45; Investor Access Corp. v Doremus & Co., 186 AD2d 401).

The parties’ remaining contentions are academic in light of this determination. Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 264, 664 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joint-effort-medical-p-c-v-dunkelman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack