New York Linen Supply & Laundry Co. v. Schachter

New York Supreme Court

New York Linen Supply & Laundry Co. v. Schachter

125 Misc. 805, 212 N.Y.S. 72, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1092

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 9, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 125 Misc. 805 (New York Linen Supply & Laundry Co. v. Schachter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New York Linen Supply & Laundry Co. v. Schachter, 125 Misc. 805, 212 N.Y.S. 72, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1092 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Levy, J.:

Plaintiff seeks an injunction to restrain a former employee and his present employer from soliciting the plaintiff’s customers. The [806]*806principal defendant, Schachter, was employed as a driver for an indefinite period at a salary of thirty dollars per week, with the proviso that at the end of his employment, irrespective of the time, manner or cause of its termination, he would not solicit the customers of his former employer; that he would not engage in the same business for a period of five years. Schachter was discharged for good cause as claimed by the plaintiff, wrongfully as contended by him, and thereafter obtained employment with his codefendant. Under the authority of Eastern N. Y. W. W. L. Co. v. Abrahams (173 App. Div. 788) an injunction must be granted in a clear case of this character, irrespective of the dispute as to the wrongfulness of the discharge. If the period of restraint upon the employee after the termination is reasonable there is such a clear case and the negative covenant will be enforced. At the same time, the reasonableness of such covenants is always a condition of their recognition by a court of equity. (Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber, 106 N. Y. 473.) Certain English cases recently deten mined indicate a reluctance to enforce such contracts. (Attwood v. Lamont, L. R. [1920] 3 K. B. 571; Morris v. Saxelby, L. R. [1916] 1 A. C. 688; Goldsoll v. Goldman, L. R. [1914] 2 Ch. 603; Mason v. Provident Clothing, etc., Co., L. R. [1913] A. C. 724.)

In Wallach Laundry System v. Fortcher (116 Misc. 712) the court held that the two-year contractual period of restraint was reasonable and brought the case within the rule of the Abrahams Case (supra) in which the period was eighteen months. In the instant case I cannot say that the plaintiff has established á clear and convincing claim of the reasonableness of the covenant extending for five years. Under the circumstances, I think that the granting of injunctive relief should await the trial of the action.

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

Levy, J.:

Plaintiff seeks an injunction to restrain a former employee and his present employer from soliciting the plaintiff’s customers. The [806]*806principal defendant, Schachter, was employed as a driver for an indefinite period at a salary of thirty dollars per week, with the proviso that at the end of his employment, irrespective of the time, manner or cause of its termination, he would not solicit the customers of his former employer; that he would not engage in the same business for a period of five years. Schachter was discharged for good cause as claimed by the plaintiff, wrongfully as contended by him, and thereafter obtained employment with his codefendant. Under the authority of Eastern N. Y. W. W. L. Co. v. Abrahams (173 App. Div. 788) an injunction must be granted in a clear case of this character, irrespective of the dispute as to the wrongfulness of the discharge. If the period of restraint upon the employee after the termination is reasonable there is such a clear case and the negative covenant will be enforced. At the same time, the reasonableness of such covenants is always a condition of their recognition by a court of equity. (Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber, 106 N. Y. 473.) Certain English cases recently deten mined indicate a reluctance to enforce such contracts. (Attwood v. Lamont, L. R. [1920] 3 K. B. 571; Morris v. Saxelby, L. R. [1916] 1 A. C. 688; Goldsoll v. Goldman, L. R. [1914] 2 Ch. 603; Mason v. Provident Clothing, etc., Co., L. R. [1913] A. C. 724.)

In Wallach Laundry System v. Fortcher (116 Misc. 712) the court held that the two-year contractual period of restraint was reasonable and brought the case within the rule of the Abrahams Case (supra) in which the period was eighteen months. In the instant case I cannot say that the plaintiff has established á clear and convincing claim of the reasonableness of the covenant extending for five years. Under the circumstances, I think that the granting of injunctive relief should await the trial of the action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 Misc. 805, 212 N.Y.S. 72, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-linen-supply-laundry-co-v-schachter-nysupct-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack