Premier Laundry, Inc. v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Premier Laundry, Inc. v. Klein

273 A.D. 946, 78 N.Y.S.2d 161

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

DecidedApril 12, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 273 A.D. 946 (Premier Laundry, Inc. v. Klein) 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

Premier Laundry, Inc. v. Klein, 273 A.D. 946, 78 N.Y.S.2d 161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In our opinion the order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion denied because the moving affidavits fail to set forth a sufficiently clear case to warrant the granting of the temporary injunction in this action. (See Clark Paper & Mfg. Co. v. Stenacher, 236 N. Y. 312; Levy v. Cosmos, 221 App. Div. 533.) The only solicitation disclosed in the record was through a letter circulated by a trade association to all of its members, who apparently were openly engaged in a type of business commonly known to use or require laundry service. There is no proof that this method of solicitation was intended for the purpose of enticing away the plaintiff’s customers.

In reversing the order appealed from we do not intend to indicate that if upon the trial evidence is produced showing a breach of the restrictive covenant by [947]*947any improper solicitation of customers, the plaintiff may not he entitled to adequate protection.

Glennon, Dore and Callahan, J., concur; Peck, P. J., and Cohn, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Order reversed, with' $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and motion denied. [See post, p. 996.]

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

Per Curiam.

In our opinion the order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion denied because the moving affidavits fail to set forth a sufficiently clear case to warrant the granting of the temporary injunction in this action. (See Clark Paper & Mfg. Co. v. Stenacher, 236 N. Y. 312; Levy v. Cosmos, 221 App. Div. 533.) The only solicitation disclosed in the record was through a letter circulated by a trade association to all of its members, who apparently were openly engaged in a type of business commonly known to use or require laundry service. There is no proof that this method of solicitation was intended for the purpose of enticing away the plaintiff’s customers.

In reversing the order appealed from we do not intend to indicate that if upon the trial evidence is produced showing a breach of the restrictive covenant by [947]*947any improper solicitation of customers, the plaintiff may not he entitled to adequate protection.

Glennon, Dore and Callahan, J., concur; Peck, P. J., and Cohn, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Order reversed, with' $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and motion denied. [See post, p. 996.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 946, 78 N.Y.S.2d 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/premier-laundry-inc-v-klein-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack