Lehman v. Piontkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lehman v. Piontkowski

74 A.D.2d 841, 425 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10603

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 841 (Lehman v. Piontkowski) 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

Lehman v. Piontkowski, 74 A.D.2d 841, 425 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin defendant from violating a covenant not to compete, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered December 3, 1979, which denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We agree with Special Term that the record reveals serious doubts as to whether the defendant’s expulsion as a director of the corporation, the involuntary transfer of his stock and the termination of his employment with the corporation, were proper and lawful (see Business Corporation Law, §§ 702, 708). Consequently, it is entirely possible that plaintiffs are [842]*842suffering no legal injury whatsoever, since all the income derived by the defendant subsequent to the July 23, 1979 "expulsion meeting” may actually be corporate income. In any event, we agree with Special Term that plaintiffs have a more than adequate remedy at law if successful at trial, through an award of monetary damages. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin defendant from violating a covenant not to compete, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered December 3, 1979, which denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We agree with Special Term that the record reveals serious doubts as to whether the defendant’s expulsion as a director of the corporation, the involuntary transfer of his stock and the termination of his employment with the corporation, were proper and lawful (see Business Corporation Law, §§ 702, 708). Consequently, it is entirely possible that plaintiffs are [842]*842suffering no legal injury whatsoever, since all the income derived by the defendant subsequent to the July 23, 1979 "expulsion meeting” may actually be corporate income. In any event, we agree with Special Term that plaintiffs have a more than adequate remedy at law if successful at trial, through an award of monetary damages. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 841, 425 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehman-v-piontkowski-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack