Summary
holding a one-year noncompete reasonable in duration
Summary of this case from JLM Couture, Inc. v. GutmanOpinion
June 22, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about April 20, 2000, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction staying enforcement of the restrictive covenant contained within her employment contract with defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Jack S. Dweck, for plaintiff-appellant.
David F. Dobbins, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach, Lerner, JJ.
The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff preliminary injunctive relief enjoining enforcement of the restrictive covenant in plaintiff's employment contract, since plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing of likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury absent an injunction, and that the equities balance in her favor (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862; Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750). While restrictive covenants tending to prevent an employee from pursuing a similar vocation after termination of employment are, as a general rule, disfavored by the courts, they will be enforced if they are reasonably limited temporally and geographically, necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests, and neither harmful to the general public nor unduly burdensome to the employee (see, BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 388-389). The record made on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief indicates that the 12-month limitation placed upon plaintiff is of reasonable duration; that the restriction is reasonably limited geographically to New York and New Jersey; that the restriction is necessary to protect defendants' interests; that enforcement of the restriction will not be harmful to the public; and that abiding the restriction will not be unduly burdensome to plaintiff. We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing.
M-3279 — Asness v. Nelson
Motion seeking to strike portions of reply brief and for other related relief denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.