From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dwyer v. Jung

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Nov 19, 1975
137 N.J. Super. 135 (App. Div. 1975)

Opinion

Argued November 5, 1975 — Supplemental Material Submitted November 7, 1975 —

Decided November 19, 1975.

Appeal from The Superior Court, Chancery Division, 133 N.J. Super. 343.

Before Judges KOLOVSKY, BISCHOFF and BOTTER.

Mr. S.M. Chris Franzblau argued the cause for appellants ( Messrs. Franzblau, Falkin DiMarzio, attorneys).

Mr. Joseph C. Glavin, Jr. argued the cause for respondents.


With leave of the Supreme Court, defendants appeal from an interlocutory order entered in the trial court. By that order the trial court declared void as against public policy a restrictive covenant contained in the partnership agreement of the former law firm known as Jung, Dwyer Lisbona. That covenant sought to allocate designated clients to individual partners upon termination of the partnership, unrelated to retirement of a partner, and sought, for a period of five years, to restrict each partner from doing business with a client designated as belonging to another partner.

Substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Kimmelman's opinion, reported at 133 N.J. Super. 343 (Ch.Div. 1975), we hold that this covenant violates DR 2-108(A) of the Disciplinary Rules adopted by our Supreme Court and is unenforceable.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Dwyer v. Jung

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Nov 19, 1975
137 N.J. Super. 135 (App. Div. 1975)
Case details for

Dwyer v. Jung

Case Details

Full title:EDMOND J. DWYER AND ALBERT C. LISBONA, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. FRED W…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Nov 19, 1975

Citations

137 N.J. Super. 135 (App. Div. 1975)
348 A.2d 208

Citing Cases

Karlin v. Weinberg

He also moved for an order of "partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint," urging that the…

FAW, CASSON CO.,v. CRANSTON

Defendant also argues that as a matter of public policy a restrictive covenant should be held per se…