Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc. v. Katan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc. v. Katan

121 A.D.2d 610, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58595

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

DecidedJune 23, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.2d 610 (Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc. v. Katan) 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

Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc. v. Katan, 121 A.D.2d 610, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction based upon an alleged breach of a covenant not to compete contained in a franchise licensing agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated September 5, 1985, which denied its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Inasmuch as the enforceability of the restrictive covenant in the franchise agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant Katan cannot clearly be ascertained at this juncture, Special Term properly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction (see, Purchasing Assoc. v Weitz, 13 NY2d 267; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745). Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction based upon an alleged breach of a covenant not to compete contained in a franchise licensing agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated September 5, 1985, which denied its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Inasmuch as the enforceability of the restrictive covenant in the franchise agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant Katan cannot clearly be ascertained at this juncture, Special Term properly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction (see, Purchasing Assoc. v Weitz, 13 NY2d 267; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745). Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 610, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meineke-discount-muffler-shops-inc-v-katan-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack