Mitel Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Napolitano, 226 A.D.2d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Mitel Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Napolitano, 226 A.D.2d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Buttar v. Elite Limousine Plus, Inc. (nyappdiv, 2023-03-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Buttar v. Elite Limousine Plus, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Auth. , 226 AD2d 165, 165-166 [1st Dept 1996]; Ortiz v Mary Immaculate Hosp. , 48 AD2d 704, 704 [2d Dept 1975]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Buttar v. Elite Limousine Plus, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Auth. , 226 AD2d 165, 165-166 [1st Dept 1996]; Ortiz v Mary Immaculate Hosp. , 48 AD2d 704, 704 [2d Dept 1975]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) CSI Group, LLP v. Harper
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Agency LLC, 48 AD3d 327 [2008]; Mitel Telecommunications Sys. v Napolitano, 226 AD2d 165, 165 [1996]; Goldome Corp. v Wittig, 221 AD2d 931, 932 [1995]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ziolkowski v. Han-Tek, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Auth., 226 AD2d 165, 165-166 [1996]), as well as HanTek’s affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages (see generally Singh v Friedson, 36 AD3d 605, 606 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 861 [2007]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ziolkowski v. Han-Tek, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Auth., 226 AD2d 165, 165-166 [1996]), as well as HanTek’s affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages (see generally Singh v Friedson, 36 AD3d 605, 606 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 861 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mitel Telecommunications Systems, Inc.
v.
Lorenzo \Larry\" Napolitano"
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 9, 1996.
226 A.D.2d 165
1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3661
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.) entered June 8, 1995, which denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from competing with its business for a period of six months, and from soliciting any former customers, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The covenant prohibiting defendant from competing with plaintiffs business in the New York City metropolitan area was expressly limited to six months following the termination of defendant’s employment with plaintiff. Since the relevant time period has already transpired, the covenant cannot be enforced (see, Lehman v Piontkowski, 93 AD2d 809, 814, affd 61 NY2d 703). In any event, we note that plaintiff has not demonstrated that it has suffered any injury or shown that the equities are in its favor (see, Hay Group v Nadel, 170 AD2d 398, 399).

Plaintiff is also not entitled to a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from soliciting their former customers, since the parties contracted to limit the nonsolicitation of customers to three years following the sale of the business, which period also has already elapsed (see, MGM Ct. Reporting Serv. v Greenberg, 74 NY2d 691, 693). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.