Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. Werthman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. Werthman

280 A.D.2d 934, 720 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1275

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 2001·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and first through eighth causes of action reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss [935] the first through eighth causes of action of the amended complaint (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [1], [7]). The restrictive covenants set forth in the employment agreement are client-based, and the court erred in determining that they are unreasonable as a matter of law because they contain no geographic limitations (see, Bates Chevrolet Corp. v Haven Chevrolet, 13 AD2d 27, 30). In any event, overbroad restrictive covenants are partially enforceable “to the extent necessary to protect [the employer’s] legitimate interest” (BDO Seidman v Hirshberg, 93 NY2d 382, 394; see, Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. v Foti, 270 AD2d 250, 251). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and first through eighth causes of action reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss [935] the first through eighth causes of action of the amended complaint (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [1], [7]). The restrictive covenants set forth in the employment agreement are client-based, and the court erred in determining that they are unreasonable as a matter of law because they contain no geographic limitations (see, Bates Chevrolet Corp. v Haven Chevrolet, 13 AD2d 27, 30). In any event, overbroad restrictive covenants are partially enforceable “to the extent necessary to protect [the employer’s] legitimate interest” (BDO Seidman v Hirshberg, 93 NY2d 382, 394; see, Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. v Foti, 270 AD2d 250, 251). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. Werthman, 280 A.D.2d 934, 720 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

280 A.D.2d 934 (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. Werthman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related