MRI Management Recruiters of Mohawk Valley, Inc. v. Cowan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MRI Management Recruiters of Mohawk Valley, Inc. v. Cowan

277 A.D.2d 921, 715 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11645

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action alleging defendants’ breach of a restrictive covenant in the parties’ employment agreement and seeking injunctive relief and money damages. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from contacting or soliciting any of plaintiff’s clients during the pendency of the action. Plaintiff failed to establish that it has the requisite “ ‘clear right’ to preliminary injunctive relief’ 0County of Orange v Lockey, 111 AD2d 896, 897). We therefore modify the order by denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Finally, defendants contend that the court erred in denying their cross motion to dismiss the complaint. We disagree. It is well settled that, on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the facts alleged in the complaint are accepted as true, plaintiff is afforded “the benefit of every possible inference,” and the court must “determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88). Upon our review of the complaint, we conclude that the court properly refused to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Injunction.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action alleging defendants’ breach of a restrictive covenant in the parties’ employment agreement and seeking injunctive relief and money damages. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from contacting or soliciting any of plaintiff’s clients during the pendency of the action. Plaintiff failed to establish that it has the requisite “ ‘clear right’ to preliminary injunctive relief’ 0County of Orange v Lockey, 111 AD2d 896, 897). We therefore modify the order by denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Finally, defendants contend that the court erred in denying their cross motion to dismiss the complaint. We disagree. It is well settled that, on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the facts alleged in the complaint are accepted as true, plaintiff is afforded “the benefit of every possible inference,” and the court must “determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88). Upon our review of the complaint, we conclude that the court properly refused to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Injunction.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

MRI Management Recruiters of Mohawk Valley, Inc. v. Cowan, 277 A.D.2d 921, 715 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

277 A.D.2d 921 (MRI Management Recruiters of Mohawk Valley, Inc. v. Cowan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related