Washington Square Institute for Psychotherapy & Mental Health, Inc. v. Speciner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Washington Square Institute for Psychotherapy & Mental Health, Inc. v. Speciner

259 A.D.2d 368, 687 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2769

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered April 20, 1998, which, in an action by a psychotherapy institute against a former employee for damages caused by breach of a restrictive covenant, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment as to liability, and directed an assessment of damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The restrictive covenant in issue, which merely prohibits defendant from treating patients introduced to her by plaintiff for a period of one year after termination of her employment, is reasonable as to time and location, and necessary to protect plaintiffs legitimate interest in safeguarding a patient list that clearly is not in the public domain (cf., Reed, Roberts Assocs. v Strauman, 40 NY2d 303, 308). We also note, as did the IAS Court, that plaintiffs termination reports did not advise defendant that the patients expressed a desire to transfer to her en masse, but rather that none of them desired further treatment. Whether the subject covenant would be enforceable where the terminating employee advises plaintiff of a patient’s request to be transferred, and plaintiff refuses to consent to such request, is a question we need not address. Defendant’s claim that plaintiff suffered no damages should be raised in the forthcoming assessment. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered April 20, 1998, which, in an action by a psychotherapy institute against a former employee for damages caused by breach of a restrictive covenant, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment as to liability, and directed an assessment of damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The restrictive covenant in issue, which merely prohibits defendant from treating patients introduced to her by plaintiff for a period of one year after termination of her employment, is reasonable as to time and location, and necessary to protect plaintiffs legitimate interest in safeguarding a patient list that clearly is not in the public domain (cf., Reed, Roberts Assocs. v Strauman, 40 NY2d 303, 308). We also note, as did the IAS Court, that plaintiffs termination reports did not advise defendant that the patients expressed a desire to transfer to her en masse, but rather that none of them desired further treatment. Whether the subject covenant would be enforceable where the terminating employee advises plaintiff of a patient’s request to be transferred, and plaintiff refuses to consent to such request, is a question we need not address. Defendant’s claim that plaintiff suffered no damages should be raised in the forthcoming assessment. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Washington Square Institute for Psychotherapy & Mental Health, Inc. v. Speciner, 259 A.D.2d 368, 687 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

259 A.D.2d 368 (Washington Square Institute for Psychotherapy & Mental Health, Inc. v. Speciner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related