R.P.I. Services, Inc. v. Eisenberg

29 A.D.3d 459, 814 N.Y.S.2d 870
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 25, 2006·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered April 26, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff s use of an assumed name, albeit that of a nonexistent corporation, in its nondisclosure agreements with the individual defendants, its former employees, did not vitiate such [460] agreements (see Mail & Express Co. v Parker Axles, Inc., 204 App Div 327 [1923]). We note that defendants do not claim to have been misled or prejudiced by the assumed name. The agreements were supported by consideration (see Gazzola-Kraenzlin v Westchester Med. Group, P.C., 10 AD3d 700, 702 [2004]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

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

R.P.I. Services, Inc. v. Eisenberg, 29 A.D.3d 459, 814 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

29 A.D.3d 459 (R.P.I. Services, Inc. v. Eisenberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harmon v. Ivy Walk Inc.
48 A.D.3d 344 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. FUBU Records, LLC
34 A.D.3d 293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)