Smith v. Train, Smith Counsel, L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Train, Smith Counsel, L. L. C.

269 A.D.2d 299, 704 N.Y.S.2d 460, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2044

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 24, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered October 5, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Looking “behind and beyond the label to ascertain the true nature of the transaction” (Purchasing Assocs. v Weitz, 13 NY2d 267, 273), the motion court properly determined that the restrictive covenant at issue was made in connection with a contract of employment and properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction since defendant failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted and that the balance of equities lies in its favor (see, Reed, Roberts Assocs. v Strauman, 40 NY2d 303). The parties’ conflicting allegations will most appropriately be resolved at a speedy trial at which all factual controversies maybe fully argued and expeditiously determined (see, Matter of Federation to Preserve Greenwich Vil. Waterfront & Great Port v New York State Dept. of Transp., 150 AD2d 225). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, 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 (Charles Ramos, J.), entered October 5, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Looking “behind and beyond the label to ascertain the true nature of the transaction” (Purchasing Assocs. v Weitz, 13 NY2d 267, 273), the motion court properly determined that the restrictive covenant at issue was made in connection with a contract of employment and properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction since defendant failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted and that the balance of equities lies in its favor (see, Reed, Roberts Assocs. v Strauman, 40 NY2d 303). The parties’ conflicting allegations will most appropriately be resolved at a speedy trial at which all factual controversies maybe fully argued and expeditiously determined (see, Matter of Federation to Preserve Greenwich Vil. Waterfront & Great Port v New York State Dept. of Transp., 150 AD2d 225). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Smith v. Train, Smith Counsel, L. L. C., 269 A.D.2d 299, 704 N.Y.S.2d 460, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

269 A.D.2d 299 (Smith v. Train, Smith Counsel, L. L. C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related