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

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 934 (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. Werthman) 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

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

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]*935the 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]*935the 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 934, 720 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malcolm-pirnie-inc-v-werthman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack