NCR Corp. v. Rotondi

88 A.D.2d 537, 450 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16675
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 18, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 537 (NCR Corp. v. Rotondi) 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
NCR Corp. v. Rotondi, 88 A.D.2d 537, 450 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered March 5,1982, granting plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to the extent of limiting defendant Rotondi’s activities in soliciting all of plaintiff’s present and potential customers, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by limiting the preliminary injunction to the present customers in defendant Rotondi’s former territory and to the five agreed potential customers, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. The restrictive covenant in the employment contract between plaintiff NCR Corporation and the defendant Rotondi is enforceable under the criteria set forth in Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co. v A-1-A Corp. (42 NY2d 496, 499). Moreover, plaintiff made a showing that it was entitled to a preliminary injunction to enforce that restrictive covenant. However, Special Term’s preliminary injunction was overly broad insofar as it precluded defendant Rotondi from soliciting all present and potential customers of NCR without any geographic limitation. The preliminary injunction should be limited to those five present customers in the former territory of defendant Rotondi. Upon oral argument, the court was also informed that defendant Rotondi had five potential customers (excluding Hellenic Lines) in his former territory. The preliminary injunction will be limited to those five potential customers rather than all potential customers of the plaintiff. Settle order. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Markewich and Asch, JJ.

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

Related

R.C. v. City of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 03017 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Leon M. Reimer & Co., PC v. Cipolla
929 F. Supp. 154 (S.D. New York, 1996)
Amex Distributing Co., Inc. v. Mascari
724 P.2d 596 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 A.D.2d 537, 450 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ncr-corp-v-rotondi-nyappdiv-1982.