Rochelle v. Amendola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rochelle v. Amendola

8 A.D.2d 825, 190 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8351

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

DecidedJune 8, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 825 (Rochelle v. Amendola) 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

Rochelle v. Amendola, 8 A.D.2d 825, 190 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for an injunction, the appeal is from an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts [826]*826sufficient to constitute a cause o£ action. Respondent, who is in the bail bond business, alleges that appellant was employed as a branch office manager or “ Bail Bond Executing Agent ” and that he agreed in writing that he would not enter the bail bond business for five years subsequent to the termination of employment with respondent and that within said five-year period he has threatened to conduct a bail bond business in the same building where respondent maintains his place of business. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for an injunction, the appeal is from an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts [826]*826sufficient to constitute a cause o£ action. Respondent, who is in the bail bond business, alleges that appellant was employed as a branch office manager or “ Bail Bond Executing Agent ” and that he agreed in writing that he would not enter the bail bond business for five years subsequent to the termination of employment with respondent and that within said five-year period he has threatened to conduct a bail bond business in the same building where respondent maintains his place of business. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 825, 190 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rochelle-v-amendola-nyappdiv-1959.