Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. Werthman, 280 A.D.2d 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. Werthman, 280 A.D.2d 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …partially enforceable 'to the extent necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest at p. 935 ✓ Topic ↗
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hernandez Tech., Inc. v. Rivera (nyappdiv, 2025-06-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hernandez Tech., Inc. v. Rivera
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
A restrictive covenant that is overly broad may be partially enforced to the extent necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest ( see BDO Seidman , 93 NY2d at 394 ; Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer , 230 AD3d 451 , 452 [1st Dept 2024]; Malcolm Pirnie , Inc. v Werthman , 280 AD2d 934, 935 [4th Dept 2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Genesee Valley Trust Co. v. Waterford Group, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Absent anticompetitive misconduct by the employer not present here, a restrictive covenant that is overbroad in some respect is “partially enforceable ‘to the extent necessary to protect [the employer’s] legitimate interest’ ” (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v Werthman, 280 AD2d 934, 935 [2001]; see BDO Seidman v Hirshberg, 93 NY2d 382, 394-395 [1999]; see also Brown & Brown, Inc. v Johnson, 25 NY3d 364, 371 [2015]) and, with that limited exception, section 7.1 is prima facie enforceable against Costello.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Genesee Valley Trust Co. v. Waterford Group, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Absent anticompetitive misconduct by the employer not present here, a restrictive covenant that is overbroad in some respect is “partially enforceable ‘to the extent necessary to protect [the employer’s] legitimate interest’ ” (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v Werthman, 280 AD2d 934, 935 [2001]; see BDO Seidman v Hirshberg, 93 NY2d 382, 394-395 [1999]; see also Brown & Brown, Inc. v Johnson, 25 NY3d 364, 371 [2015]) and, with that limited exception, section 7.1 is prima facie enforceable against Costello.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott, Stackrow & Co., C.P.A.'S, P.C. v. Skavina
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, plaintiff urges this Court to partially enforce the agreement to protect its legitimate interest in preventing defendant’s unfair use of client relationships that it and the Yager firm enabled her to acquire during the course of her employment (see Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v Werthman, 280 AD2d 934, 935 [2001]; Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. v Foti, 270 AD2d 250, 251 [2000]).
discussed Cited "see" Nolan v. State of New York
nyclaimsct · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
For instance, the Legislature specifically excluded from recovery vacaturs for violations of constitutional rights (Criminal Procedure Law [CPL] § 440.10[h]), and vacaturs where "material evidence" produced by the prosecution at trial "was procured in violation" of a defendant's constitutional rights (CPL 440.10[1][d]; see Tyson v State of New York , 182 Misc 2d 707, 712 [Ct Cl, Corbett, J., Aug. 1999], affd for reasons stated below 280 AD2d 934 [4th Dept. 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 714 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
v.
Paul H. Werthman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 7, 2001.
280 A.D.2d 934
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1275
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and first through eighth causes of action reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss[*935] the first through eighth causes of action of the amended complaint (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [1], [7]). The restrictive covenants set forth in the employment agreement are client-based, and the court erred in determining that they are unreasonable as a matter of law because they contain no geographic limitations (see, Bates Chevrolet Corp. v Haven Chevrolet, 13 AD2d 27, 30). In any event, overbroad restrictive covenants are partially enforceable “to the extent necessary to protect [the employer’s] legitimate interest” (BDO Seidman v Hirshberg, 93 NY2d 382, 394; see, Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. v Foti, 270 AD2d 250, 251). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.