Money Garden Corp. v. CMC Markets (US) LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Money Garden Corp. v. CMC Markets (US) LLC

44 A.D.3d 551, 843 N.Y.S.2d 508

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 551 (Money Garden Corp. v. CMC Markets (US) LLC) 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

Money Garden Corp. v. CMC Markets (US) LLC, 44 A.D.3d 551, 843 N.Y.S.2d 508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered February 7, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The claims of tortious interference with contract, unfair competition and unjust enrichment broadly allege that the former employee is barred by the subject agreements from competing in any manner with plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support the claims. Without allegations as to how the former employee breached those provisions and how defendant induced the breach, the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

Nor do we perceive any basis for granting leave to replead. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered February 7, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The claims of tortious interference with contract, unfair competition and unjust enrichment broadly allege that the former employee is barred by the subject agreements from competing in any manner with plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support the claims. Without allegations as to how the former employee breached those provisions and how defendant induced the breach, the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

Nor do we perceive any basis for granting leave to replead. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 551, 843 N.Y.S.2d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/money-garden-corp-v-cmc-markets-us-llc-nyappdiv-2007.