Opinion
February 24, 2000
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered October 5, 1999, which denied defendant's motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Robert L. Sills for the Plaintiff-Respondent.
Robin D. Fessel for the Defendant-Appellant.
SULLIVAN, P.J., NARDELLI, WALLACH, LERNER, BUCKLEY, JJ.
Looking "behind and beyond the label to ascertain the true nature of the transaction" (Purchasing Assocs., Inc. v. Weitz, 13 N.Y.2d 267, 273), the motion court properly determined that the restrictive covenant at issue was made in connection with a contract of employment and properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction since defendant failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted and that the balance of equities lies in its favor (see, Reed, Roberts Assocs., Inc. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303). The parties' conflicting allegations will most appropriately be resolved at a speedy trial at which all factual controversies may be fully argued and expeditiously determined (see, Matter of the Fedn. to Preserve the Greenwich Vil. Waterfront and Great Port, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Transp., 150 A.D.2d 225).