Hammerstein v. Mann

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Mitchell

    249 B.R. 55 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 7 times
    Noting that a non-debtor's entitlement to injunctive relief to enforce a non-competition provision was "a decision which . . . [was] difficult to reach in a vacuum"

    Dockstader v. Reed, 121 A.D. 846, 106 N YS. 795, 797 (N.Y.App.Div. 1907); accord Arias v. Solis, 754 F. Supp. at 294 ("Even though a contract may expressly state that the employee's services are unique or extraordinary, as in this case, the Court is not bound by the statement, and it does not preclude the Court from making a finding to the contrary"); Frederick Bros. Artists Corp. v. Yates, 271 A.D. 69, 62 N.Y.S.2d 714, 715 (1946) ("The fact that the contract of hiring acknowledged that the defendant's abilities and capabilities were unique is not controlling upon a court of equity"), aff'd without op., 296 N.Y. 820, 72 N.E.2d 13 (1947); Magid v. Tannenbaum, 164 A.D. 142, 149 N.Y.S. 445, 446 (N.Y.App.Div. 191 4) (court is not bound by admission that services are unique or extraordinary or consent to an injunction in the case of a breach, and must instead look to the facts); Hammerstein v. Mann, 137 A.D. 580, 122 N.Y.S. 276 (N.Y.App.Div. 1910) (reversing grant of injunction absent proof that defendant singer's services were unique or extraordinary, although she admitted such and consented to injunction in parties' contract); see generally 76 N.Y.JUR.2D Injunctions § 77, at 469 (1988). Moreover, in the absence of actual proof beyond the contractual stipulations that the services are unique and cannot be replaced, injunctive relief is unwarranted.

  2. Corpin v. Wheatley

    227 App. Div. 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 1929)   Cited 19 times

    Each case of this character must stand upon its own particular facts. Considering the nature of defendant's services, the specified absence of findings and the general state of the proof, we are led to the conclusion that the prohibiting provisions of this contract are unenforcible. ( Kessler Co. v. Chappelle, 73 App. Div. 447; Dockstader v. Reed, 121 id. 846; Hammerstein v. Mann, 137 id. 580; Clark Paper Mfg. Co. v. Stenacher, 236 N.Y. 312.) The judgment should be reversed on the law, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

  3. Shubert Theatrical Co. v. Gallagher

    200 App. Div. 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922)   Cited 4 times

    Whatever success they have subsequently attained would seem to be more due to a clever and tuneful song that they purchased after they entered into the contract. As was said by the learned justice at Special Term: "The most that can be said of them is that they were pleasing and successful artists, who commanded fair salaries, but I am not satisfied that they possessed any such special merit or reputation or that their talents were unusual in any such degree as to make their loss a matter of serious consequence to the plaintiff (see Dockstader v. Reed, 121 App. Div. 846; Hammerstein v. Mann, 137 id. 580; also Am. Eng. Ann. Cases, 1914 B note, p. 11 et seq.)." There is another serious obstacle to the plaintiff's motion.

  4. Magid v. Tannenbaum

    164 App. Div. 142 (N.Y. App. Div. 1914)   Cited 7 times
    Traveling representative for tailors

    In Dockstader v. Reed ( 121 App. Div. 846) the court said: "Whether equity will intervene to restrain by injunction the violation of a restrictive covenant in relation to personal services, depends in large measure upon whether a substitute for the employee can readily be obtained and whether such substitute will substantially answer the purpose of the contract." To the same effect, Hammerstein v. Mann ( 137 App. Div. 580). In Kessler Co. v. Chappelle ( 73 App. Div. 447) Mr. Presiding Justice VAN BRUNT said: "There is nothing in these papers which tends to show any special, unique or extraordinary services upon the part of the defendant; * * * on the contrary, they show that others occupy the same relations to the firm and are performing similar duties.

  5. ELDRIDGE v. MILO

    129 Misc. 666 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1927)

    The nature of the employment, the comparatively small salary paid to the defendant, and the number of those doing the same work, lead me to the belief that there is some doubt as to the applicability of the McCall Case ( supra). I am rather inclined toward the feeling that the decisions in Hammerstein v. Mann ( 137 A.D. 580) and Dockstader v. Reed (121 id. 846) are more in point, and that injunctive relief should not be granted where it is sought against an employee whose services are not extraordinary or unique in character and who can undoubtedly be replaced without difficulty. In the circumstances, I think that the demand of the moving party should await the actual trial of the cause, and the motion is denied.