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

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 299 (Smith v. Train, Smith Counsel, L. L. C.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 299, 704 N.Y.S.2d 460, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-train-smith-counsel-l-l-c-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack