Sage Realty Corp. v. Kerin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sage Realty Corp. v. Kerin

281 A.D.2d 334, 723 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3186

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 334 (Sage Realty Corp. v. Kerin) 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

Sage Realty Corp. v. Kerin, 281 A.D.2d 334, 723 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered on or about June 14, 2000, which, in an action for breach of the non-disparagement clause contained in the parties’ employment “separation agreement” and for breach of the duty of loyalty, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs to defendant-respondent-appellant payable by plaintiffs.

The contract clause in question requires defendant to refrain from making disparaging comments about plaintiff or assisting others in doing so. The cause of action based on this clause alleges that shortly after defendant left plaintiff’s employ, she was interviewed by a trade paper, which reported that she “decided she’d rather hit the pavement than [plaintiff’s] principal].” Even assuming that such language can be reasonably understood as disparaging, the cause of action based thereon was properly dismissed, after depositions of both defendant and the reporter had been taken, in the absence of any evidence that defendant solicited the interview or suggested the language in the article or provided any information which would support the implication. Nor is there any merit to the cause of action for breach of the duty of loyalty, the record establishing that all of the alleged breaches were known to plaintiff at the time it entered into the separation agreement, which contained a general release (cf., H. W. Collections v Kolber, 256 AD2d 240, 241). We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered on or about June 14, 2000, which, in an action for breach of the non-disparagement clause contained in the parties’ employment “separation agreement” and for breach of the duty of loyalty, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs to defendant-respondent-appellant payable by plaintiffs.

The contract clause in question requires defendant to refrain from making disparaging comments about plaintiff or assisting others in doing so. The cause of action based on this clause alleges that shortly after defendant left plaintiff’s employ, she was interviewed by a trade paper, which reported that she “decided she’d rather hit the pavement than [plaintiff’s] principal].” Even assuming that such language can be reasonably understood as disparaging, the cause of action based thereon was properly dismissed, after depositions of both defendant and the reporter had been taken, in the absence of any evidence that defendant solicited the interview or suggested the language in the article or provided any information which would support the implication. Nor is there any merit to the cause of action for breach of the duty of loyalty, the record establishing that all of the alleged breaches were known to plaintiff at the time it entered into the separation agreement, which contained a general release (cf., H. W. Collections v Kolber, 256 AD2d 240, 241). We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 334, 723 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sage-realty-corp-v-kerin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack