Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola

43 Citing cases

  1. Schimenti Constr. Co. v. Schimenti

    217 Conn. App. 224 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    See, e.g., Classic Homemakers, LLC v. Coolidge , supra, 65 Conn. L. Rptr. at 7 (decisions of Superior Court between 1985 and 2008 go "both ways" on whether continued employment constitutes consideration for at-will employee in context of restrictive covenant). Some Superior Court cases have cited Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola , 43 Conn. Supp. 191, 648 A.2d 898 (1993), aff'd, 231 Conn. 272, 648 A.2d 877 (1994) ( Van Dyck ), or Dick v. Dick , 167 Conn. 210, 355 A.2d 110 (1974), to support the proposition that continued employment is inadequate consideration for a restrictive covenant. Both cases are distinguishable from the present case, and, therefore, we are not persuaded by the reasoning of the Superior Court decisions that relied on these cases.

  2. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. v. Campbell

    No. 4:20-cv-00117-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    The reasonableness of a geographic restriction in a covenant not to compete is "intertwined" with the reasonableness of the covenant's time restrictions. Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn.Sup. 191, 648 A.2d 898 (1993). Broad geographic restrictions may thus be reasonable if the duration is short; longer periods may be reasonable if the geographic area is small.

  3. Braman Chemical Enterprises, v. Barnes

    2007 Ct. Sup. 22815 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)   Cited 3 times

    Id., at 533. Although in Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn.Sup. 191, 648 A.2d 898 (1993), the court stated that the reasonableness of time and geographic restrictions in a covenant not to compete are intertwined and that broad geographic restrictions may be reasonable if the duration of the covenant is short, and longer periods may be reasonable if the geographic area is small, our Appellate Court has instructed us that "the five pronged test is disjunctive; a finding of unreasonableness in any one of the criteria is enough to render the covenant unenforceable." New Haven Tobacco Co., Inv. v. Perrelli, 18 Conn.App. 531, 534, 559 A.2d 715, 717 (1989).

  4. AIG Fin. Prods. Corp. v. Arthurs (In re AIG Fin. Prods. Corp.)

    22-11309 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. May. 9, 2024)

    Efthimiou v. Smith, 846 A.2d 216, 218-22 (Conn. 2004) (affirming trial court's determination that neither party was entitled to relief because both had breached their settlement agreement). Cf. Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 648 A.2d 898, 902 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1993) (holding that because employer's breach was not material, it could sue for breach of non-compete agreement), aff'd, 648 A.2d 877 (Conn. 1994). AIG contends that the cases relied upon by the Former Executives do not support their broad assertion that a material breach renders all provisions of a contract unenforceable.

  5. AIG Fin. Prods. Corp. v. Arthurs (In re AIG Fin. Prods. Corp.)

    660 B.R. 603 (Bankr. D. Del. 2024)

    Efthimiou v. Smith, 268 Conn. 487, 846 A.2d 216, 218-22 (2004) (affirming trial court's determination that neither party was entitled to relief because both had breached their settlement agreement). Cf. Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn. Supp. 191, 648 A.2d 898, 902 (1993) (holding that because employer's breach was not material, it could sue for breach of non-compete agreement), aff'd, 231 Conn. 272, 648 A.2d 877 (1994). AIG contends that the cases relied upon by the Former Executives do not support their broad assertion that a material breach renders all provisions of a contract unenforceable.

  6. DelVecchio Reporting Services, LLC v. Edwards

    No. CV166061264S (Conn. Super. Ct. Jul. 13, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    At page 144 the court said: The restrictive covenant not to compete contained in the Employment Agreement was knowingly entered into by Burdette for adequate consideration. Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn.Supp. 191, 196 648 A.2d 898 (Conn.Super.Ct. 1993) (finding restrictive covenant not to compete enforceable even though entered into after employment commenced because parties agreed to the terms prior to employment, and alternatively finding enhanced commission rate constituted new consideration), aff'd, 231 Conn. 272, 648 A.2d 877 (1994); Russo Assocs., Inc. v. Cachina, No. 27 69 10, 1995 WL 94589, *3 (Conn.Super.CT. Mar. 1, 1995) (holding that where " the preexisting contract of employment is terminable at will, no overt consideration is required to support an otherwise valid covenant not to compete. The law presumes that such a covenant is supported by the employer's implied promise to continue the employee's employment; or his forbearance in not discharging the employee then and there.") (internal citations omitted) (citing Osborne v. Locke Steel Chain Co., 153 Conn. 527, 531, 218 A.2d 526 (1966

  7. Beacon Insurance & Investment Group, LLC v. Panzo

    CV146044992S (Conn. Super. Ct. Jul. 25, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Additionally, the elements are intertwined, such that " [a] restriction covering a large area might be reasonable if in effect for a brief time, while a restriction covering a small area might be reasonable for a longer time." Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn.Supp. 191, 197, 648 A.2d 898 (1993), aff'd, 231 Conn. 272, 648 A.2d 877 (1994) (twelve-month restriction throughout Connecticut found reasonable in light of subsequent conditions in the agreement). In Robert S. Weiss & Associates, Inc. v. Wiederlight, supra, 208 Conn. 528, the Supreme Court was presented with the issue of whether a non-competition agreement between the defendant, an insurance broker, and the plaintiff, his former employer, was reasonable.

  8. Cost Management Incentives v. Osborne

    2002 Ct. Sup. 15560 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002)   Cited 2 times
    Concluding that continued employment was not sufficient consideration for restrictive covenants and distinguishing Roessler by reasoning that, in present case, "neither of the defendants voluntarily left their employment," and, "[t]herefore, it is the plaintiff itself which has broken the bargain, or, withdrawn the consideration it cites for the agreements"

    "It is well settled law in Connecticut that continued employment is not consideration for a covenant not to compete entered into after the beginning of the employment. The case cited by the defendant, Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn. Sup. 191 (1993) is not applicable to the case at bar. In Van Dyck the parties had not concluded the terms of the employment contract.

  9. Russo Associates, Inc. v. Cachina

    1995 Ct. Sup. 1805 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    In its objection to the referee's report, Russo Associates argues that the referee erred in concluding that the document executed by the parties was unenforceable as a contract because it lacked consideration. In support of its position, Russo Associates cites Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn. Sup. 191, 648 A.2d 898 (1993), aff'd, 231 Conn. 272, 698 A.2d 877 (1994). In his answer to Russo Associate's objection and in his motion for judgment, Cachina contends that Van Dyck is distinguishable.

  10. Russo Associates, Inc. v. Cachina

    1995 Ct. Sup. 528 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    In its objection to the referee's report, Russo Associates argues that the referee erred in concluding that the document executed by the parties was unenforceable as a contract because it lacked consideration. In support of its position, Russo Associates cites Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn. Sup. 191, 648 A.2d 898 (1993), aff'd, 231 Conn. 272, 698 A.2d 877 (1994). In his answer to Russo Associate's objection and in his motion for judgment, Cachina contends that Van Dyck is distinguishable.