From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grassi & Co. v. Honka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Feb 20, 2020
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 1262 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

11087 651673/18

02-20-2020

Grassi & Co., CPAS, P.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Honka, Ronald, Defendant-Appellant.

Orr Cook, Ponte Vedra, FL (Rene M. Fix of the bar of the State of Florida, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant. Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, New York (Matthew R. Yogg of counsel), for respondent.


Orr Cook, Ponte Vedra, FL (Rene M. Fix of the bar of the State of Florida, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant.

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, New York (Matthew R. Yogg of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered on or about January 16, 2019, which denied defendant's pre-answer CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

When assessing a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts as alleged in the complaint are accepted as true, the plaintiff is accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and the court determines only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). Further, a court may freely consider affidavits submitted by the plaintiff to remedy any defects in the complaint, and "the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether [they have] stated one" (id. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

Under these standards, the complaint sufficiently alleges claims for breach of the employment agreement's non-solicitation provision and tortious interference.

Defendant's attacks on the reasonableness, breadth, legality, and enforceablity of the non-recruitment provision are all premature at this early stage of the litigation, as they are each fact-based determinations (accord BDO Seidman v Hirshberg , 93 NY2d 382 [1999]; Karpinski v Ingrasci , 28 NY2d 45, 49 [1971]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 20, 2020

CLERK


Summaries of

Grassi & Co. v. Honka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Feb 20, 2020
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 1262 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Grassi & Co. v. Honka

Case Details

Full title:Grassi & Co., CPAS, P.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Honka, Ronald…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 20, 2020

Citations

2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 1262 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Citing Cases

Space Race, LLC v. Ala. Space Sci. Exhibit Comm'n

"When deciding a ... motion to dismiss, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts as…

Navatar Grp. v. Spayne Lindsay & Co.

A "motion to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence . . . may be…