North Shore Hematology/Oncology v. Zervos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

North Shore Hematology/Oncology v. Zervos

278 A.D.2d 210, 717 N.Y.S.2d 250, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12597

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 210 (North Shore Hematology/Oncology v. Zervos) 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

North Shore Hematology/Oncology v. Zervos, 278 A.D.2d 210, 717 N.Y.S.2d 250, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for injunctive relief, the defendant appeals from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), dated May 26, 1999, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendant (a) from soliciting patients of the plaintiffs, (b) from soliciting medical professionals who have referred patients to the plaintiffs, (c) from maintaining an office in oncology and hematology medicine within a three-mile radius of the plaintiffs’ office, and (d) from retaining fees and negotiating checks for professional services rendered by the plaintiffs pending determination of this action, and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 17, 1999, as (a), upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination, and (b) granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion, inter alia, to hold him in contempt.

[211]*211Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 26, 1999, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated December 17, 1999, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 17, 1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

“Covenants restricting a professional, and in particular a physician, from competing with a former employer or associate are common and generally acceptable (see, e.g., Karpinski v Ingrasci, 28 NY2d 45, 47-49; see generally, Validity and Construction of Contractual Restrictions on Right of Medical Practitioner to Practice, Incident to Partnership Agreement, Ann., 62 ALR3d, 970). As with all restrictive covenants, if they are reasonable as to time and area, necessary to protect legitimate interests, not harmful to the public, and not unduly burdensome, they will be enforced (see, Reed, Roberts Assoc, v Strauman, 40 NY2d 303, 307 mot for rearg den 40 NY2d 918; Karpinski v Ingrasci, 28 NY2d 45, 49-51, supra)” (Gelder Med. Group v Webber, 41 NY2d 680, 683; see also, Novendstern v Mt. Kisco Med. Group, 177 AD2d 623). Considering the likelihood of the plaintiffs prevailing under this rule, the harm that would be irreparably inflicted upon the plaintiffs in the absence of a preliminary injunction, and the relative equities, we find that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion to the extent it granted preliminary injunctive relief.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for injunctive relief, the defendant appeals from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), dated May 26, 1999, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendant (a) from soliciting patients of the plaintiffs, (b) from soliciting medical professionals who have referred patients to the plaintiffs, (c) from maintaining an office in oncology and hematology medicine within a three-mile radius of the plaintiffs’ office, and (d) from retaining fees and negotiating checks for professional services rendered by the plaintiffs pending determination of this action, and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 17, 1999, as (a), upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination, and (b) granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion, inter alia, to hold him in contempt.

[211]*211Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 26, 1999, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated December 17, 1999, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 17, 1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

“Covenants restricting a professional, and in particular a physician, from competing with a former employer or associate are common and generally acceptable (see, e.g., Karpinski v Ingrasci, 28 NY2d 45, 47-49; see generally, Validity and Construction of Contractual Restrictions on Right of Medical Practitioner to Practice, Incident to Partnership Agreement, Ann., 62 ALR3d, 970). As with all restrictive covenants, if they are reasonable as to time and area, necessary to protect legitimate interests, not harmful to the public, and not unduly burdensome, they will be enforced (see, Reed, Roberts Assoc, v Strauman, 40 NY2d 303, 307 mot for rearg den 40 NY2d 918; Karpinski v Ingrasci, 28 NY2d 45, 49-51, supra)” (Gelder Med. Group v Webber, 41 NY2d 680, 683; see also, Novendstern v Mt. Kisco Med. Group, 177 AD2d 623). Considering the likelihood of the plaintiffs prevailing under this rule, the harm that would be irreparably inflicted upon the plaintiffs in the absence of a preliminary injunction, and the relative equities, we find that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion to the extent it granted preliminary injunctive relief.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 210, 717 N.Y.S.2d 250, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-shore-hematologyoncology-v-zervos-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack