Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. Werthman

4 Citing cases

  1. Natsource LLC v. Paribello

    151 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the training of a company's brokers and investment in helping them develop customer relationships constituted unquantifiable assets satisfying the irreparable harm requirement for a preliminary injunction

    However, other New York courts, as well as the Second Circuit, have enforced restrictive covenants with much broader geographic restrictions where the restrictive covenant was otherwise reasonable. See Maltby, 166 Misc.2d 481 (enforcing six month ban on employment with a competitor within the New York Metropolitan Area, the Los Angeles greater Metropolitan Area, the greater Toronto Metropolitan area, the greater London Metropolitan Area, and Continental Europe.); Ticor, 173 F.3d 63 (enforcing six month ban on employment with competitor in the State of New York); Bates Chevrolet Corp. v. Haven Chevrolet, Inc., 13 A.D.2d 27, 213 N.Y.S.2d 577 (First Dep't 1961) (enforcing five year ban, without geographic limitation, on soliciting former employer's clients); Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. Werthman, 280 A.D.2d 934, 720 N.Y.S.2d 863 (Fourth Dep't 2001) (enforcing client-based restrictive covenant containing no geographic limitation). The Court chooses to follow the reasoning of Maltby and the latter decisions rather than Judge Gammerman's decisions.

  2. Genesee Valley Trust Co. v. He Waterford Grp., LLC

    130 A.D.3d 1555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

    , 283–284, 437 N.Y.S.2d 646, 419 N.E.2d 324 ; Purchasing Assoc. v. Weitz, 13 N.Y.2d 267, 271–272, 246 N.Y.S.2d 600, 196 N.E.2d 245, rearg. denied 14 N.Y.2d 584, 248 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 198 N.E.2d 270 ), and we conclude that the scope and one-year duration of section 7.1 are reasonably necessary, as applied to Costello, to protect CNC's legitimate interest in GVT's goodwill (see Weiser LLP, 51 A.D.3d at 583–584, 859 N.Y.S.2d 634 ; see also Purchasing Assoc., 13 N.Y.2d at 271–272, 246 N.Y.S.2d 600, 196 N.E.2d 245 ; Sarantopoulos v. E–Z Cash ATM, Inc., 35 A.D.3d 708, 709, 826 N.Y.S.2d 688 ), except relative to clients, if any, that Costello independently recruited to GVT after it was sold to CNC (see Weiser LLP v. Coopersmith, 74 A.D.3d 465, 467–468, 902 N.Y.S.2d 74 ). Absent anticompetitive misconduct by the employer not present here, a restrictive covenant that is overbroad in some respect is “partially enforceable ‘to the extent necessary to protect [the employer's] legitimate interest’ ” (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. Werthman, 280 A.D.2d 934, 935, 720 N.Y.S.2d 863 ; see BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 394–395, 690 N.Y.S.2d 854, 712 N.E.2d 1220 ; see also Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson, 25 N.Y.3d 364, 369, 12 N.Y.S.3d 606, 610, 34 N.E.3d 357, 361 ) and, with that limited exception, section 7.1 is prima facie enforceable against Costello.

  3. Genesee Valley Trust Co. v. Waterford Grp., LLC

    130 A.D.3d 1555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

    d 276, 283–284, 437 N.Y.S.2d 646, 419 N.E.2d 324; Purchasing Assoc. v. Weitz, 13 N.Y.2d 267, 271–272, 246 N.Y.S.2d 600, 196 N.E.2d 245, rearg. denied14 N.Y.2d 584, 248 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 198 N.E.2d 270), and we conclude that the scope and one-year duration of section 7.1 are reasonably necessary, as applied to Costello, to protect CNC's legitimate interest in GVT's goodwill ( see Weiser LLP, 51 A.D.3d at 583–584, 859 N.Y.S.2d 634; see also Purchasing Assoc., 13 N.Y.2d at 271–272, 246 N.Y.S.2d 600, 196 N.E.2d 245; Sarantopoulos v. E–Z Cash ATM, Inc., 35 A.D.3d 708, 709, 826 N.Y.S.2d 688), except relative to clients, if any, that Costello independently recruited to GVT after it was sold to CNC ( see Weiser LLP v. Coopersmith, 74 A.D.3d 465, 467–468, 902 N.Y.S.2d 74). Absent anticompetitive misconduct by the employer not present here, a restrictive covenant that is overbroad in some respect is “partially enforceable ‘to the extent necessary to protect [the employer's] legitimate interest’ ” (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. Werthman, 280 A.D.2d 934, 935, 720 N.Y.S.2d 863; see BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 394–395, 690 N.Y.S.2d 854, 712 N.E.2d 1220; see also Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson, 25 N.Y.3d 364, 369, 12 N.Y.S.3d 606, 610, 34 N.E.3d 357, 361) and, with that limited exception, section 7.1 is prima facie enforceable against Costello.

  4. Scott, Stackrow Company v. Skavina

    9 A.D.3d 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 66 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding trial court's refusal to enforce employment agreement, where employer had required the defendant to sign it upon hiring her and thereafter as a condition of her employment

    We note, in addition, that the agreement contains no geographic limitations. Nevertheless, plaintiff urges this Court to partially enforce the agreement to protect its legitimate interest in preventing defendant's unfair use of client relationships that it and the Yager firm enabled her to acquire during the course of her employment ( see Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. Werthman, 280 AD2d 934, 935; Trans-Continental Credit Collection Corp. v. Foti, 270 AD2d 250, 251). The determination of whether an overly broad restrictive covenant should be enforced to the extent necessary to protect an employer's legitimate interest involves "a case specific analysis, focusing on the conduct of the employer in imposing the terms of the agreement" ( BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, supra at 394).