H & R Recruiters, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick, 243 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
H & R Recruiters, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick, 243 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: C.C. v. Free Methodist Church-USA (nysupctmonroe, 2025-05-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) C.C. v. Free Methodist Church-USA
N.Y. Sup. Monroe · 2025 · confidence medium
Therefore, defendants have not shown prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as to the fourth cause of action alleging negligent hiring and the motion for summary judgment to dismiss the fourth cause of action is denied ( Johansmeyer v New York City Dept. of Educ ., 165 AD3d 634 , 636 [2d Dept 2018] [summary judgment denied where defendant's own papers raised issue of fact as to appropriate measures implemented to evaluate intern's employment and fitness at the time intern was hired]; Chichester v Wallace , 150 AD3d 1073, 1075 [2d Dept 2017][ an employer may be liable under a [*4]theory of…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) L.B. v. Hanson Place Seventh-Day Adventist Church
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2025 · confidence medium
Accordingly, Defendants did not meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating, as a matter of law, that they are entitled to summary judgment on the negligent hiring claim (see Johansmeyer v New York City Dept. of Educ., 165 AD3d 634 , 636 [2d Dept 2018] [summary judgment denied where defendant’s own papers raised issue of fact as to appropriate measures implemented to evaluate intern’s employment and fitness at the time intern was hired]; Giangrasso v Assn. for Help of Retarded Children, 243 AD2d 680, 680 [2d Dept 1997] [defendant not entitled to summary judgment where questions of fact …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) L.B. v. Hanson Place Seventh-Day Adventist Church
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2025 · confidence medium
Accordingly, Defendants did not meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating, as a matter of law, that they are entitled to summary judgment on the negligent hiring claim (see Johansmeyer v New York City Dept. of Educ., 165 AD3d 634 , 636 [2d Dept 2018] [summary judgment denied where defendant’s own papers raised issue of fact as to appropriate measures implemented to evaluate intern’s employment and fitness at the time intern was hired]; Giangrasso v Assn. for Help of Retarded Children, 243 AD2d 680, 680 [2d Dept 1997] [defendant not entitled to summary judgment where questions of fact …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sandoval v. Leake & Watts Servs., Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Johansmeyer v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 165 AD3d 634 , 636 [2d Dept 2018] [Department of Education failed to make a prima facie showing entitling it to summary judgment dismissing a student's negligent hiring claim because its own submissions raised an issue of fact as to whether it took the appropriate measures to evaluate an employee's fitness to intern in the school's guidance department]; Chichester v Wallace , 150 AD3d 1073, 1075 [2d Dept 2017][employers failed to make a prima facie showing entitling them to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's negligent hiring claim where they fa…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Apa Security, Inc. v. Apa
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Further, there was no evidence that either Apa or Rose copied or memorized any customer information from confidential sources (see Reed, Roberts Assoc. v Strauman, supra; H & R Recruiters v Kirkpatrick, 243 AD2d 680, 681 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hamilton v. Accu-Tek
E.D.N.Y · 1999 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Giangrasso v. Ass’n for Help of Retarded Children, 243 A.D.2d 680 , 664 N.Y.S.2d 569 (2d Dep’t 1997) (negligent hiring and retention of employee); Chow v. Boonyam, 240 A.D.2d 737 , 660 N.Y.S.2d 729 (2d Dep’t 1997) (reinstating claim against parents who allegedly entrusted their son with .a hammer and knife used to kill plaintiffs’ child).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
H & R Recruiters, Inc., Doing Business as Hagan-Ricci Group
v.
William K. Kirkpatrick
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 27, 1997.
243 A.D.2d 680
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for breach of an employment agreement, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered October 3, 1996, as denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from,[*681] on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which is for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, and the counterclaims are severed.

It is well settled that restrictive covenants which tend to prevent an employee from pursuing a similar vocation after termination of employment are disfavored by the law (see, Reed, Roberts Assocs. v Strauman, 40 NY2d 303, 307). “Such covenants will be enforced only if reasonably limited temporally and geographically * * * and then only to the extent necessary to protect the employer from unfair competition which stems from the employee’s use or disclosure of trade secrets or confidential customer lists * * * Thus, where the employer’s past or prospective customers’ names are readily ascertainable from sources outside its business, trade secret protection will not attach and their solicitation by the employee will not be enjoined” (Howard Sys. Intl, v IMI Sys., 192 AD2d 371, 373). However, if the employee’s services are truly special, unique or extraordinary, and not merely of high value to his or her employer, injunctive relief may be available although trade secrets are not involved (Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co. v A-l-A Corp., 42 NY2d 496, 499).

Under the circumstances of the instant case, the restrictive covenant in the employment agreement is, not enforceable because the plaintiffs client lists do not qualify for trade secret protection. The defendant established, and the plaintiff failed to refute, that the identities of the plaintiffs past and prospective customers were readily discoverable through various non-confidential sources, such as company directories and job postings that are widely distributed to placement firms, including the one with which the defendant is currently employed (see, Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co. v A-l-A Corp., supra; Ronald W. Freeman, P. C. v Li Zhu, 209 AD2d 213, 214; Pezrow Corp. v Seifert, 197 AD2d 856, 857; Howard Sys. Intl, v IMI Sys., supra, at 373). There is no evidence that the defendant pirated or memorized the client list or the names of the “contact” people working for the clients (see, Reed, Roberts Assocs. v Strauman, supra, at 308). Additionally, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant’s services were unique or extraordinary or that he was irreplacable. Accordingly, the defendant should have been granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.